Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
251
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Comment
> There is a word for this: Fraud.
While in general I like to tell that some site is swindling it's customers ;-), I don't think I would name it "fraud" in this case (it's stupid on their part, but that's another story). And that's because at least for me, "trial" means something to try :-); kind of test drive without any guarantees that it will be the full thing. For example, when I'm taking a car for a test drive, I won't complain if salesguy will be in the car and I won't be allowed to drink my coffee and spill it all over the place :-).
Overall, it's all about expectations, but IMHO trials are generally not expected to be full; if somebody gives me full trial - good, if not - tough luck, but I don't have much to complain about.
So IMHO "Don't even bother with trial" is a useful warning, thanks, but naming it "fraud" is IMHO a bit too much.
|
06-01-09 05:51am
|
Reply
252
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
> Sometimes it requires as little acknowledgment as taking the document
> into your possession.
As far as I've heard, usually in such cases courts are VERY reluctant to upheld these conditions :-), so it's mostly a weapon of frightening customers who're going to complain. Still, whenever I notice such conditions, I feel that such guys are trying to cheat me, so why I should do business with them, especially if there is a choice?
|
05-16-08 04:10pm
|
Reply
253
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Reply
> doesn't it make more sense to give us your experiences with five or ten > sites you've actually joined?
My understanding this is a completely different thing. The question as I read it was about sites out there, not about sites one cares to join (which means pre-selection process, especially for PU users). I think poll results confirm my interpretation too (I don't think that somebody was mistreated by 75% of the sites he joined).
> if there is disclosure of elements in the site that you may not like > in the free area or the terms and conditions, isn't that ethical
> business practice? I think it is.
Yes, and you should note that there were several sites I've considered "probably ethical but definitely not worth to join", so it's not about liking or disliking free area, but an estimate of chances of them lying in free area (if garbage site doesn't promise anything, it's ok, but if it says they have daily updates, it's suspicious). About terms and conditions, I didn't say these guys are necessarily unethical, but outrageous terms and conditions make me quite suspicious, so I wrote "unethical: unclear" for them. Sure this whole exercise is all about personal interpretation, but I hope mine isn't too far out :-).
|
05-16-08 04:44am
|
Reply
254
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
> In business in general it is common practice to reserve as many rights as you can think of...
You're right, but on the other hand everything has it's limits. I'm reading documents I'm signing VERY carefully, and I'm sure that if my bank would write "we reserve the right to charge you for excessive inquiries at our sole discretion", I wouldn't be a client of that bank :-).
|
05-16-08 03:35am
|
Reply
255
|
Max Hardcore
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
Thanks a lot, I'll probably try both of them.
|
10-31-07 10:29am
|
Reply
256
|
Max Hardcore
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Comment
Normally I don't use download managers, but with joining PU I might eventually need one :-).
Could you please advise me on which one (ones?) you think is good for porn sites? (I definitely need something without nasty stuff like adware etc.).
|
10-31-07 10:12am
|
Reply
257
|
Melissa Midwest
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
IMHO his review is still MUCH MORE useful than facts like number of pictures (which can be easily found on TBP, and even if they're not 100% up to date, they're most likely pretty close):
380+ Photo Shoots (avg. 100 pics each)
Hi-Res Pics: N, Model Index: N, Small & Large Pics: N, ZIP Files: N
Watermarks: Yes, medium-sized (all pictures).
Videos: 205+ Videos (approx. 4 min. each)
Full Scenes: N, Multi-Bandwidth: N, Vid Caps: N
Watermarks: Yes, medium-sized (all videos).
|
05-27-09 05:58am
|
Reply
258
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Just a purely personal opinion :-): for me fake smile is SO MUCH worse than fake boobs, and in "fake smile" department Met Art is FAR ahead of the Playboy :-((.
|
11-03-09 12:50am
|
Reply
259
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
Good comparison with Playboy, but you know, Playboy IMHO wins this comparison hands down. For me, Playboy models feel SO MUCH more "alive" then MetArts' "dead fish" ones.
|
08-18-09 05:02am
|
Reply
260
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
> If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome.
Do you mind if I amend it a bit? "If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes WITH BORED "I'M THE QUEEN AND YOU'RE DIRT" EXPRESSION CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THEIR FACES" - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome." would be MUCH better description IMHO :-).
|
05-10-09 10:33pm
|
Reply
261
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
Oh, this background of yours indeed explains "attention to details" which sometimes crosses the border of "not seeing forest for the trees". And it's not your fault, but the one of the whole huge legal system which is built to make formalities dominate over common sense and reason. BTW, if I would be in your place (which is not too likely), I would care much more about "not guilty person behind the bars" rather than about "guilty person walking free".
Anyway, I don't see how this background of yours is relevant to the concern I have raised.
|
04-03-09 01:17am
|
Reply
262
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
I don't "target" anybody (come on, do you really expect me to care that much about your image here?), I'm just expressing my concern. About those people "below you" - could you elaborate a bit? ANYBODY who will post his/her FIRST review with 98 or so rating is suspicious to me until proven otherwise, period. In formal terms - such rating in the FIRST review by definition carries significant negative credibility attached to it.
|
11-15-08 02:54pm
|
Reply
263
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
> I don't think it's suspicious when someone starts their posting career
> at PU giving the highest ratings ever - probably because that's what I
> did.
Interesting, maybe I'm suspicious because I didn't it? :-) But seriously, starting with 98 or so review is a "business card" of the typical "shill" (we've seen many of them here, and there is no doubt about it); while I agree it is not conclusive evidence, it is still suspicious.
> Met Art deserves high praise...
If only they would make their models look a bit more alive than current "dead fish" looks... But unfortunately there is no holy grail in porn, not even in softcore :-(.
|
11-15-08 10:16am
|
Reply
264
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
> you cant really tell if any person on this site is honest or not
I think I can tell at least most of the time, otherwise what's the point of reading the site?
> I have the right to put out my opnion about a site
Right
> just cause you dont agree with my score dosent mean that I am lying
Right, but I'm suspicious about you _not_ because of disagreeing with you (come on, I disagree with every second person here, starting from exotics4me, but there are no regulars I can suspect), but because your pattern of reviews is quite close to a typical "shill" who tries to promote the site (or sites) for money.
|
11-15-08 10:06am
|
Reply
265
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
> I think hondaman done some fine things here after all
For the first review - yes, but IMHO it's still too one-handed. Ok, it can easily be "honestly one-handed", but it's still way too one-handed IMHO.
> But, bro - we'll see in the future - guess there's never any 100%..
For me there are a few 100%s here on PU, starting (surprise) from myself :-), and ending with about 50 or so people (yourself included :-) ); come on, suspecting roseman or exotics4me of shilling would be WAY too far fetching.
|
11-14-08 12:34pm
|
Reply
266
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Well, bro, to put it bluntly - doesn't it look suspicious when somebody just STARTS his PU life with ridiculously high ratings? You're here longer than me, but even I myself have seen LOTS of different shills around here (coming, making 98 or so review for the site, seeing that rating doesn't count, then sometimes trying to make a few MUCH less detailed reviews to get points, and then usually giving up and disappearing). Granted, it doesn't look TOO suspicious for hondaman, but I'm still not 100% sure about him.
|
11-14-08 12:12pm
|
Reply
267
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Sorry, I cannot agree that the very first review with the words "the best errotic art site on the net" and rating of 97 can possibly be a "fine" one.
|
11-14-08 11:52am
|
Reply
268
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
> Not sure what you mean by "lack of fire".
I've meant that at least most of Met-Art models are plastic dollies without any personality. Please read my review and also comments of the other PU'ers to my review.
> Are you sure that you where ever a member of this site?
Yes, I am. Also I'm sure of lots of the other things, though not 100% sure about search on Met-Arts. If it is there, good for them, but my rating stays (I even think of reducing it because of "lack of fire", which IMHO is not compensated by brilliant photo work and locations); just wondering: are ALL Russian models have so little personality?
|
11-14-08 11:40am
|
Reply
269
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
Right; as Monahan has put it:
"There is no real "fire" in many (most?) of the pics."
|
09-29-08 12:05pm
|
Reply
270
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
> There is no real "fire" in many (most?) of the pics.
Exactly; thanks for expressing my feelings it this concise and exact way; IMHO it's a perfect way to describe it in one sentence instead of my long and maybe not so clear description.
|
09-29-08 09:08am
|
Reply
271
|
Murder Lily
(0)
|
Reply of
monica's Reply
Thanks; your reply has indeed reduced my initial suspicions, but as you have said, we'll see how it goes later.
|
10-23-08 01:20pm
|
Reply
272
|
Murder Lily
(0)
|
Reply of
aamurphy's Review
Is it only my nose which smells something funny in this review and very quick subsequent webmaster reply?
|
10-23-08 06:43am
|
Reply
273
|
Naked News
(0)
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
I see your point, but in a sense "very good" and "even better" are the ONLY valid units of measurement :-) (everything else can be misused or even abused, for example, 5MBit/s sounds great, but only until you realize it is MPEG-1 or poorly encoded MPEG-4 in .MOV format from old Apple days).
If you want to know about bitrates and resolutions for NakedNews downloads, I can't provide much useful info for this specific site, because (as a fairly rare exception for me) I don't do any downloads on NakedNews (I don't see the point in storing "stale" news).
The only thing I've seen is their streaming, which is IMHO the best streaming I've ever seen. I've tried to measure it's bitrate and found that it's surprisingly low, somewhere between 500kBit/s and 750kBit/s, but visually it is MUCH better then "usual" streaming/downloads at this bitrate which you can find elsewhere.
For the record: I was their "Gold" member (the one for which they had "free 3 days" promo a week ago, not sure if it still lasts), for other types of membership YMMV (there should be some difference, shouldn't it?).
|
02-13-10 04:23am
|
Reply
274
|
Nakedby
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
I see, thanks.
|
10-22-07 06:36am
|
Reply
275
|
Nakedby
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Review
> fast dl speed (up to 672/kbs)!
Is this kBit/sec or kBytes/sec? For kBits/sec it doesn't look too impressive, for kBytes/sec it sounds "too good to be true" :-).
|
10-20-07 02:33pm
|
|
