Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
Reply of
Jutti24's Review
Hi. Thanks for the review and info. I had actually came upon this site last week when browsing through the niche link. Signed up for a one-month non-reccuring to replace my Score sub. Will add my review in a bit after I have had time to really go through the site.
I agree about the cost. It's the main reason I signed up. I have always been a collector of boob-mags over the years--Juggs, Gent, Score, Voluptuous, etc.. Considering that the price is only $16.99 and a single magazine today costs about $12, that's not a bad deal, especially when you can download all the galleries. Many of the models here I have seen and know quite well from the past. I have seen photo sets never seen before I so I think this material is pretty exclusive to the site.
It won't be for everyone, however. The models are of the thick and plump variety, and if you're not into BBW, it probably might not be your thing. If you like those huge, natural breasts with those saucer-sized aroela, this is quite good and the photography actually impressess me--much better than I thought it would be based on the rather rag-tag appearance of the site itself. Also, like you said, no hardcore and seeing genitals is rare. The photos are more of the classic, conservative variety and full nudes are rare. It seems to be all about the breasts.
|
01-26-12 04:23pm
|
Reply
27
|
Just Nips
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Review
It looks like something I would enjoy viewing. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
How would you rate the overall quality of photos? Are the images clear and crisp or somewhat lacking? I looked at a few of the sample images and they looked a little bit like scans of 35mm film. Or perhaps that is simply due to the lower quality of the samples and them not giving away the best.
Thanks
|
01-18-12 06:15pm
|
Reply
28
|
Just Nips
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Review
Nice review.
What is the percentage of different model figures? Is it mostly models on the thin side and a few voluptuous women or distributed all around?
|
01-18-12 04:41pm
|
Reply
29
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi. I think people probably download a lot but not a lot on average, by day. I don't know how the sites manage their bandwidth or what the user stats are like. I would just assume the average user probably doesn't download a large quantity after the first few days of excitement with the new site. The average user probably wouldn't go past 10 GIG a day after that, I suspect.
It's not that the sites don't want power users--money is money. But a limit forces the power users to accept the limit and alter their DL behavior, if they want to subscribe. It would help with detering some types of piracy, as well--I think.
|
01-17-12 03:35pm
|
Reply
30
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi.
I am not really sure how each site manages their sales. I assume they have hired consultants that analyzed the bandwidth requirements and how this effects the profits.
You are what is termed a power-user. This is neither good nor bad. But I assume that sites prefer not to retain such customers, even though they wouldn't ever publically say so. More DL traffic means you have to purchase more servers or people will complain about slow connectivity etc..
I don't really think anyone would offer this upgrade stratification as the extra charge probably wouldn't justify any possible increase in revenue for offering this.
To me, a site that has DL limits is basically saying they do no want power users who are going to be downloading a lot of content in a short amount of time. Very few sites do this but I think more would like to. They probably don't want to drive away people who think they might be limited, even though they may never really reach daily limits. For sites with DL limits, power-users are certainly welcome to apply, but your requirements are not going to not be met.
Again, everything i offered could be complete BS. That's just my take.
|
01-15-12 04:57pm
|
Reply
31
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi.
If you are a high-volume user then download limits are certainly something negative.
As far as streaming and downloads, they are two different animals. Both, done in high volumes, can slow down connectivity and they both take the same bandwidth in most cases. However, one takes an active time commitment, the other does not.
I suspect you would be hard-pressed to find users who stream entire videos from start to finish in front of their computer, and do so 3-4 times a day. Most people probably only stream certain sections they find interesting and the bandwidth used is probably quite small. Streaming videos real-time requires a large time commitment.
With downloads, you can simply set a number of them going and move on and retrieve them later. No time commitment is involved and you don't sit there watching the download. Most people are probably going to download and watch later. The sites all have to know this and understand it is downloads that consume most of the bandwidth. Streaming probably accounts for a small fraction of useage.
Unlimited downloads are kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet. Most people probably won't make more than 1-2 passes to the buffet table in a single sitting before they have had their fill. There will always be people who keep going back, however, and I suspect that most site owners don't really care if such consumers move on to other pastures. It is profitable to retain the ones who only make 2 passes.
|
01-12-12 03:57pm
|
Reply
32
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
Hello. Thanks. I tried to be fair and objective about it. never reviewed a porn site before.
|
01-12-12 03:43pm
|
Reply
33
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Another possibility is connectivity. Users downloading hd content all day can slow down the server for other members.
This is a business that I assume caters to the avg user. Volume is key to profits. I am sure such a business does research using industry data and historical data gleaned from past user behavior when it comes to download figures. The number is likely set based on the needs and behavior of the avg subscriber to such a site. You don't want power users because they are a drain. You want the power users to leave so setting a cap serves a purpose in this regards as well. You make your profits off the avg consumer. Limits likely are set accordingly.
I am not minimizing your frustration but this is probably just what a consultant felt represented the most prudent decision based on profit margins vs retention.
Then again, everything I just offered could be complete bs.
|
01-12-12 07:39am
|
Reply
34
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi. Thanks.
I like to know contexts when I read reviews, whether for cars or movies. It's often hard to tell where people are coming from. Everyone has preferences and varied experiences and this can slew opinions.
As far as the reason for having a limit on dl but not streams, I can only surmise that perhaps this is a means of preventing individuals or networks from easily pirating content? Since bandwidth charges are the same for both methods, this might be the case.
Then again, it could be a way to keep subscribers from bailing after a month-long frenzy of downloading all videos for future use. This would also be a valid explanation.
The last possibility would be related to technical specs. Perhaps there is some odd technical reason. I would not be inclined to think this is the case.
My guess is its a combination of the first 2 above. This would be something I couldn't fault a business for implementing. You want to keep a customer base around and piracy is a big issue for any online media outlet. However, you also have to take into account the competition. Apparently, the owners do not see such a limit as stifling sales or they wouldn't make such a move.
|
01-12-12 06:11am
|
Reply
35
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
malikstarks's Reply
Hi. Thanks for the info.
Just an FYI:
I have not heard a reply from Scoreland regarding my questions. The form said they would respond within 24 hours. Maybe they are just busy or maybe they don't want to reply, or maybe they just don't care. Either of these could be true. I will just leave it there. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
I did notice that I got a truckload of promos from Scoreland yesterday in my E-Mail box, offering me an additional site if I stick around, and special deals on other sites. I signed up for one month, non-renewing. I also noticed something odd. Twice now, I have received emails telling me my password was reset as they have noticed suspiscious activity on my account. This happened the week after I signed up and also yesterday. My guess is they do this to make password sharing on the net more difficult and make sure it is the person who signed up that is using the account. I haven't used the site in a week.
I have no interest in renewing--not because of the HD issue itself, but I have seen what I wanted to and downloaded the photo sets I liked.
|
01-28-12 02:37pm
|
Reply
36
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hi. No Problem. It's good to get straight info from others. To be honest, I have always been supiscious of porn review sites because I always felt they were stacked and bisaed towards certain studios--my opinion is a lot of them really are. It's good to find a place where you can feel confident you are not getting some covert sales pitch or slanted reviews by editors. I wish I would have had straight opinions like this in the past.
Never been into online stuff until recently but mainly was a collector or softcore erotica and photography--Score was one of them. If they write me back with a response to the inquiry, I certainly will post the reply.
|
01-26-12 04:13pm
|
Reply
37
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Comment
FYI..I contacted Scoreland through the members area. I also asked if they would add a comment here(if they know about this place).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am a subscriber to Scoreland and was wondering why HD videos cannot be downloaded? Also, older video content is not available for download either. Are HD videos available for download at Score HD?
I am not asking for a refund as I felt I got what I came for. However, this seems to bit deceptive, as the homescreen displays a HD logo and there is no plain information when signing up regarding what is and is not available for video downloads.
There are also a number of comments and questions about this subject at Pornusers.com and people are wondering what the straight scoop is on this. Is there any way you could leave a reply over there, as well?
Thanks and Regards
|
01-25-12 04:29pm
|
Reply
38
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hi. Thanks.
I cannot really say for sure if Score HD allows the HD to be downloaded. I would think they would or people would get really upset. I do not have access to that without a subscription so can't check for you. I also do not know how far back in time you can download, but I suspect there are similar date restrictions as can be found at Scoreland.
As far as my review and the comment I added, I agree a lot of people will not like the fact that they don't allow any HD downloads at all at Scoreland. All of the videos on the home page have a HD logo on them and you can indeed stream them in HD. Technically, I cannot call this a fabrication as the movies can be viewd in HD --they just refrain from telling you about the download stuff. There is no statement anywhere when you sign up as to what can or cannot be downloaded. My view is that it is indeed a bit deceptive, however, and I think most will be inclined to see it that way. This will eventually upset people and they won't come back.
To be fair, I think the site should, at minimum, put an asterik next to the HD logo indicating this information. At best, they should include full information in plain view on the signup screen. You will just succeed in upsetting people if they feel like they got deceived, whether or not that was the intent.
I am a bit surprised as, over the years,I have purchased from Score in Miami before--mags and even a couple videos. I had dealings with customer service and they were always helpful and even refunded a purchase once. They never struck me as the kind to play games. As I said before, I will always give the benefit of the doubt unless I have reason to believe otherwise. Without hearing what they have to say, most will conclude this is deceptive.
As far as my opinion, I felt I got what I wanted from the site as I am primarily a photo guy. I mention this in my reviews so people know how to judge my opinions on content. I won't be re-subscribing after my 30 day sub has run out, however. I do like many of the photo sets and others into the genre probably will, as well. However, there is really not a big reason for me to stick around longer. The lack of HD download sealed it. Again, I don't view or DL a lot of video content but I like to do so when something really nice catches my eye.
I did not lower my review score even further as in all honesty, I did enjoy the photo content and felt like I got what I came for in that regards. HD video lovers, however, should definately consider all that has been said on this subject of download limits.
|
01-25-12 04:00pm
|
Reply
39
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
BradlyH's Reply
Hi. Thanks. It's a nice site for at least a one-month subscription.
|
01-17-12 03:27pm
|
Reply
40
|
Steve Bones
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
That site is pretty different, too, Cap'n.
I wonder how they deal with the 'money shot' on the skeleton. Maybe they shoot dried-up mayonaise flakes out of the dildo onto the models face.
|
02-01-12 11:36am
|
Reply
41
|
Steve Bones
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
I was trying to figure out what I was looking at as the screen was loading slow at their home page. I guess there are all kinds of fetishes out there. Can't say I ever thought about having sex with a medical school skeleton as something that would draw enough interest for a pay site to stay in the green.
|
02-01-12 11:18am
|
Reply
42
|
Top Heavy Amateurs
(0)
|
Reply of
gaypornolover's Reply
Thanks. I usually try to supply whatever info I can to try to help people get an honest opinion. In this case, there was only so much to supply and it is all negative. I honestly can't think of a positive.
I really feel bad for anyone who actually signed up on the 3 or 6 month plan. I just signed up for the 30 day and always do this as I will cancel it right away if I find it is not for me or not what was advertised. In this case, I got burned for $23. Certainly not the end of the world and it is much better than getting taken for $60 for the 3-month plan.
IMO, there should be something like a warning list that sites like this put together to let people know that people are reporting questionable practices or content. Sites certainly can't ban a site just because one person like me says so and I wouldn't expect them too.
I couldn't write anyone and demand money back because their is nobody to write. No customer service or contact info. I am partly to blamew. I should have paid more attention that this info was missing and with any business, I always like to know someone will field an inquiry.
It is technically difficult to call thease guys crooks as they did not falsely rerpresent what you will see at the site--busty amateurs. However, the total lack of qualtiy of the material and the problems with access is such that it is hard to not believe you were taken and that there is someone accepting the payment from CCBill and thinking, "Enjoy, sucker."
I could let CCBill know but obviously the sensitive nature of this and the stigma makes that unpalitable. What do you say? "The nude photos of boobs are mostly small images that are out of focus and grainy shit" ?
IMO, these kinds of vendors do a disservice to the legit vendors out there and gives the business a bad name. It also causes consumers to lose trust. It just reinforces the stereotype that some people hold that porn is run by crooked and unethical cretens looking for a quick dollar. I do not aggree with that opinion for the entire industry but regarding this vendor, it's hard not to make that judgement.
|
06-02-12 01:03pm
|
Reply
43
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Basil's Reply
Hi. Thaks for the reply.
Thanks for the offer. I wouldn't bust your butt just over me, however. I can get to the afternoon Saturday show when I am inclined. I would think most people would prefer evening shows(After 6PM Local) on weekdays. But that is obviously hard to accomodate, given the diversity of memberships on different sides of the pond.
Maybe it is a just and fitting punishment, as the US Porn Industry is responsibile for starting the whole shaving craze in the 90's. Thankfuly, Europe never fell completely under this spell and kept their senses about them. :)
|
02-06-12 08:24pm
|
Reply
44
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
I just signed up recently, as well. I didn't pay much attention to the video content as that is not my area of interest.
As far as photo quality, I definately have seen examples where focus issues are present. I don't recall seeing any glaring exposure problems, however, and I am pretty anal about things like that. Then again, I ddin't go through every set.
For me, I don't really find the girls unattractive, I think it's just that they are not over-glamorized and elements such as makeup are kept in check so as not to detract from the natural theme of the site.I certainly wouldn't meet any of these girls on the street in person and think they were ugly. Most men would find them pretty if they walked by them on the street and passed them, IMO. I think we are just so used to seeing the heavily airbrushed and post-processed porn with heavy makeup and lipstick, lingerie, and heavy facial cake powder, that when we do come across models in porn that are not made up in this way, we tend to rate them as less attractive when compared to the pro studio standard of perfection. As an example, have you ever seen a news-babe off the set, without being under the soft, flattering lighting and without the professional broadcast studio makeup? The results are quite dramatic. They can look like totally different people and much more 'average.'
Sites like this are the anti-thesis of high fashioin nude glamour and are more about bare natural beauty, IMO. Seeing a glamorized model with fancy lingerie and makeup, sporting a full bush and underarm hair would be totally out of place, IMO.
Anyways, I am not arguing and don't mean to negate any opinions. Just offering a different perspective. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. However, if you come from a site like DDF or other glam sites to a site like this, I can see how one might be inclined to equate the lack of polish to a lack of beauty.
|
02-06-12 08:07pm
|
Reply
45
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
So far, I have no complaints. Questions are answered almost immediately on the forum at the site.
Regarding the focus issue with some image sets, after having looked around more, I found the issue does appear more often in older sets. Newer sets only have this issue sporadically. When these issues do appear, however, they are only usually a major distraction when viewing the image at full resolution. I think it is definitley a gear-related issue and not technique. Sometimes, the focus will be on the wall behind the model or its locking onto the models jewelry or some high contrast object in the scene. This is almost always due to the camera body being a limited point autofocus DSLR or a subpar lense with a squirelly focus drive, or the point bias not set correctly. The lenses also seem to not always be the sharpest. Something like a Canon L series lens will fix that up in a hurry. They are expensive but produce superb results. I have a 300 2.8 L series lens I use for wildlife and the lens is so sharp that you can pick out a fly on the back of a moose at 50 yards. They are that good.
|
02-05-12 04:49pm
|
Reply
46
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Yes. I do like it. It is definately an excellant site. If there was more diversity in ethnic and model variety, I would categorize it as a truly exceptional site that would score a 100 in my eyes. I think that's the only thing it is lacking.
Obviously, this all depends on whether or not the content is for you. If someone isn't into this niche, they may rate it a 50.
I think the biggest problem is finding models. With the shift away from any hair in the 80's, not too many models are going to be willing to get into this niche and let things 'grow.'
Unfortunately, sometime in the 80's, the US Porn Industry decided it would define for everyone what represents attractive on the female body. At first, my thought as to why the shave craze took hold was that people suddenly decided that any hair on a female was just too masucline. However,this doesn't explain why even the guys in porn started shaving too--their crotch, their legs, even their pits. Somehow, for some reason, hair became contraband in the North American porn industry. After about 1990, Those of us who feel public hair(or, god forbid, an unshaved armpit) on a female can be erotic, were pushed out onto a fringe into the 'odd fetish niche ' category. Look at some porn review sites and see how something like Hairy Bush would be filed in the bizarre fetish category.
|
02-05-12 01:38pm
|
Reply
47
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
Ran out of space...
I also wanted to add that this is the first time I have been to a site where I can see myself staying around as a long-term subscriber, instead of downloading intersiting content during a one-month subscription period. The amount of updates and the web cam shows are incentive to stay. IMO, more sites should offer up such ammenities to give a cosnumer the incentive to continue on.
|
02-05-12 12:53pm
|
Reply
48
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
Hello Buddhist. Thanks for the feedback. I only have two other sites I belong to so only a couple more reviews to do.
|
01-17-12 03:28pm
|
Reply
49
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
hmm..Interesting. I read the reply from the Customer Service rep in that thread.
Not sure what to make of that. Piracy certainly would be a top concern on my mind if I owned a site. However, the 7 week cutoff seems rather arbitrary. Why 7 and not 12, for instance?
My hunch on this is that the explanation is partially true--my opinion only and not to be taken as fact. There are concerns about piracy, but I also suspect this might just be a good business move in terms of bandwidth. I say this as they do not employ this date restriction with photo gallery downloads. I downloaded galleries from stuff dated way back to 2005. There are no restrictions. I assume pirates will go after the photos as well.
So, my guess is that this limit also serves as a practical bandwidth decision that keeps the server from slowing down with folks downloading older videos.
|
01-16-12 01:23pm
|
Reply
50
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hello.
I don't see anything at Scoreland indicating a limit on downloads. There is no info in the signup screen indicating a limit but it doesn't say 'Unlimited Downloads' either. I do not download much in the way of videos so I didn't even think about this when signing up. If there is a lmit, it's probably snuck in on the fine-print on those user aggreements we always click yes to.
On this subject, something wierd I discovered at XL girls was that some videos did not have a download option at all, while others did. It makes no sense as to why certain videos could not be downloaded. It doesn't appear to be based on when the video was added or any specific content. For instance, a recent XXX action video can be downloaded, whereas a solo video one-month old cannot and vice-versa at places.
|
01-16-12 12:36pm
|
|
