| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
126
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
Let me explain a bit. I've submitted this poll because I feel that current TBP/PU category/niche system is inadequate; there are 94 categories but they're VERY unbalanced: 'Hardcore' has 4000+ sites, 'Balloons' (what Balloons have to do with porn?) have only 8 sites, that's 500x difference.
So I feel that categories would be more useful if minor niches like 'Bukkake' (33 sites) or 'Cream Pies' (61 site) are merged (as subcategories) with bigger ones like 'Cumshots' (471 site). As for other examples - 'ATM' (13 sites) can be combined with 'Anal' (303 sites), 'Cheerleaders' (17) can go into 'Uniforms' (89), and 'Trampling' (18), 'Spanking' (99) and 'Smother' (16) will fit into 'BDSM' (317).
In this case 2-level category system would look as:
- CumShots
--- Bukkake
--- Cream Pies
- Anal
--- ATM
- BDSM
--- Trampling
--- Spanking
--- Smothering
|
11-19-07 01:14am
|
Reply
127
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
Movies on BitTorrent and other P2P networks? No thanks. I've got a feeling that most of movies there are pirated ones, and I've got another feeling that people making movies are entitled to get money for it.
About QT vs DivX/XVid - my experience with them was that QT is a stable product, which I cannot say about both XVid and DivX. QT original .MOV format is inferior to both WMV and MPEG-4, but as QT started to support MPEG-4 (including AVC) it became about the same quality/bandwidth-wise as WMV.
|
11-18-07 09:23am
|
Reply
128
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
> A LOT of videos now-a-days are encoded using it and it is a really good file format.
Let's look at TBP: 6200+ sites provide WMV and only 566 DivX (plus 84 XVid whatever it means); and of those which provide DivX most provide WMV too (I took a random sample and 7 out of 10 sites with DivX also provided WMV), which leaves us with about 3% of sites with DivX and without WMV. Not that much IMHO.
As for format: DivX/XVid = MPEG-4, right? Then QuickTime7 (which I have anyway) is supposed to play it; I'm wondering if it really can do it; do you know link of any free clip in DivX/XVid so I can try it (or maybe if you have QuickTime you can try it yourself and tell)?
|
11-18-07 01:53am
|
Reply
129
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> is there really someone who havent got all codecs? :)
Me for instance. I hate installing all the garbage that comes with codecs, having to deal with adware/spyware, Windows slowing down to a crawl and/or starting to crash on regular basis. On my main laptop, I have ONLY WMP, QT and Flash plug-in, that's it; not even DivX/XVid. if the site has something different - usually it's tough luck for them, unless they have something REALLY special.
Interesting that this "REALLY special site with non-standard codecs only" didn't happen to me at least during last 2-3 years; I've noticed that usually sites that like things like XVid/DivX are Russian (or other 3rd-world) ones and there is usually nothing to see anyway :-).
|
11-17-07 03:30am
|
Reply
130
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow! Probably I should try to get such a 30" Apple beast; I used to think such things are in $5k+ range, but at $1800 (well, it will be more here) it is not prohibitively expensive.
And just curious - do you know how much that 3840x2400 thing cost?
|
11-17-07 03:22am
|
Reply
131
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow (honestly, I didn't even know such a beast exists)! But still 3500 pixel picture width should be beyond even your capabilities :-) (and when downscaling with browser, quality suffers, I'm sure you won't object :-) ). So I'm continuing to be curious - do you like anything above your 2560x1600 pixels?
|
11-15-07 03:27pm
|
Reply
132
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Getreal's Poll
Everything except for boring niche :-).
|
11-15-07 03:22pm
|
Reply
133
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
I see, thanks :-).
|
11-15-07 02:22am
|
Reply
134
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
I see, thanks for commentary. But it looks more of discussion on "why pictures are better than vids" rather than "why download all the vids you won't watch anyway" :-).
Also a question about resolution: I've seen comments like "this site is great, they have pics with resolution of 3500 px width" or something like this; as an image fun (you certainly sound so :-)), can you tell what are people doing with such big images? They won't fit on screen anyway (and scaling algorithms built-in browsers suck, so quality will suffer); maybe somebody prints them or...?
|
11-14-07 07:44am
|
Reply
135
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
It is your answer "less than 1/3rd", right? I easily understand that you're getting tired quickly of video, but why do you download that much knowing that you won't view it anyway? Is it because of sites not having reasonably good previews/picture sets to allow to make a good choice, or just because of "download all I can" paradigm, or maybe there is some other reason? Just curious.
|
11-13-07 08:50am
|
Reply
136
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Poll
Not my cup of tea - for me seeing the same face all the time is boooooring.
|
11-11-07 10:35am
|
Reply
137
|
N/A
|
Reply of
IKnoPorn's Reply
> I don't know where the other users here get their time (and money) to join so many sites per month and download so much!
Come on, not much time needed to download, especially with download manager (I've tried one recently - it really pushes you to download lots of stuff just because you can :-(, even stuff you'll never watch).
On the other hand, I am wondering where people get time to WATCH everything they download (even with 1Mbit/sec clips it will take 22+ hours to watch 10GBytes of porn).
|
11-09-07 03:49pm
|
Reply
138
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Poll
If there would be such an option, I'd mark 2 entries - "Funny" and "Slow, sensual and sexy".
"Wham-bam" is boooooring, and female insulting is not my cup of tea - I love females :-).
|
11-05-07 05:20am
|
Reply
139
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Your News
And BTW another suggestion: to put average rating of user reviews into his profile. Would help to see if the user generally puts only high ratings, or only low rating which would help to filter out some bias.
|
11-01-07 02:54pm
|
Reply
140
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Your News
I think comment type was a good thing.
|
11-01-07 02:43pm
|
Reply
141
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Reply
> Like every porn star could have his or own game.
Maybe we should ask them for games at least for PCs? At least it looks more realistic :-).
|
11-01-07 02:03pm
|
Reply
142
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Reply
> Perhaps I would play it if they made some X rated games.
Sorry to disappoint you, but chances look as good as chances for a cold day in hell. To sell video games for console developer needs to get approval of company which makes consoles, and I can't imagine Sony or MS or even Nintendo to endorse such a game, at least not until current perception of the adult industry in US changes radically. :-(.
|
11-01-07 01:34pm
|
Reply
143
|
N/A
|
Reply of
roseman's Poll
Games? Yes
Game consoles? No
|
11-01-07 03:48am
|
Reply
144
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
PU, TBP, Rabbits, Inspector - that's are sites I use (in that order).
|
10-28-07 03:21pm
|
Reply
145
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Actually it's about feeling, but bitrate is IMO the next closest thing (provided that you're comparing files of the same type; old .MOV files can look horrible in rather high bitrates).
|
10-20-07 02:20pm
|
Reply
146
|
18 Inches Of Pain
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Oh, I see, thanks.
|
05-07-08 08:24am
|
Reply
147
|
3D Sex Games
(0)
|
Reply of
dracken's Reply
I agree that this site is not really about 3D sex, it is all about interactivity; if interactivity is your cup of tea, then it might be worth a try.
> thank you for pointing it out and thank you for a great review.
You're welcome :-).
|
08-18-09 01:53am
|
Reply
148
|
3D Sex Games
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
> Well thanks for sticking it out, ... it is always nice to run across other people who enjoy the activity
Thanks to you, it takes two to tango :-).
> I'll admit I often have the habit of arguing another side just for the sake of arguing, it isn't in my nature to concede an opposing party's argument
So do I, but as long as we admit this habit, it can't be THAT bad :-).
|
10-10-08 09:51am
|
Reply
149
|
3D Sex Games
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
I agree with most of your arguments, but on the other hand... IMHO as 3D Sex Game is ALREADY ranked on PU against Hands on Hardcore (they're shown in the same list according to the ranks, BOTH in "browse sites" and "hardcore sex" sites), we need to try to put them within the same ranking system, or those pages will become misleading.
If PU admins will decide to completely separate interactive games from the rest to avoid placing them in the same list - it would be a completely different story (and I wouldn't argue against such separation), but now they ARE within the same system, with rankings directly compared to each other, and IMHO we need to take it into account.
As for difference in "how much we enjoy this or that site" - I don't see it a problem, and completely agree that it is what this site is all about :-).
|
10-10-08 06:14am
|
Reply
150
|
3D Sex Games
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Ok, I will change reference to "3D engine" to "3D graphics", thanks for pointing it out (as I've said, I'm NOT into these things, I'm just a user).
About being impossible to compare apples and oranges - well, aren't we doing it here all the time? :-) What I'm trying to do is to put ALL the reviewed sites on scale of "how much I enjoy them"; and IMHO my ratings are pretty consistent in this regard; now it became even simpler as I have lots of sites to compare new ones with, and it's quite easy for me to say that I enjoy 3D Sex Game about the same as Naked News, MUCH more than Newbie Nudes and significantly less than Met Arts.
Also while everybody can choose their own criteria, I will explain why I prefer "my" approach (try to rank everything) to "your" one.
There are two problems I see with your approach (ranking only "apples to apples"). The first one is the question "what is the niche narrow enough to compare?" Shall we stop separating ONLY 3D games or it shall be done for ALL niches? And then - shall we separate, for example, ATM from Anal as being the same or different niches? In the very extreme case we can even say that all sites are unique, but it will make any ranking completely worthless. The second problem is that when new user comes to the site, he easily can see "the best sites" by overall rating right on the home page; but at this point he doesn't care about "best in class" thing, he wants "the best overall entertainment site", and "global" ranking (opposed to "per-niche ranking") is REALLY important there; another incarnation of the same problem is that sites are usually labeled as multi-niche ones, so if 3D Sex Game is compared to such sites as "Hands on Hardcore", which means that they shall have the same ranking scale. Just IMHO though :-).
|
10-09-08 04:48pm
|
