| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1026
|
I Love The Beach
(0)
|
Reply of
polacrilex's Review
You said "updates are too small/rare." The preview site says at least 5 updates per week.
Is this another case of a site overpromising and under delivering?
|
07-12-09 11:16pm
|
Reply
1027
|
N/A
|
Reply of
careylowell's Poll
Make me feel like a real old fart but yes, I had a friend who could get his hands on some "smokers" as they were then called, with stars like Bettie Page and Candy Barr.
With the thousands of girls now doing porn there still isn't anyone that comes close to either one of those two for basic, unadulterated beauty.
And "soundless." They weren't soundless. The projectors were always rather noisy. But yes, there was no soundtrack.
|
07-11-09 10:15am
|
Reply
1028
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
If my memory is accurate the first site I joined was SexyBabes.tv many years ago. I'm still a member although my tastes have migrated to video from photos with the advent of HD and the ability to download scenes as long as 1 hour in a single bite.
Candidly I've thought about dropping the site but with the addition of Babelicious to their lineup, while I don't get nearly as much material as I do with, say, Twistys, what they have is still very high quality.
The other end of the spectrum is Danni.com which I joined in 03 or 04 and loved it. The negative was their DRM, which they said would not stop me from creating my own stash on DVD discs that would still be viewable after I dropped my membership(they lied). But as long as I stayed a member and was on line I could acquire the requisite license.
Then when Danny Ashe sold it, the customer service and content slipped badly and their business practices started getting a bit sleazy. I quit the site, then tried a test month in 2006 only to find that it had remained rather bad,,,and still with the lousy DRM.
Haven't been back since and doubt that I ever will go back.
|
07-09-09 08:17am
|
Reply
1029
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Reply
The clean shaven aspect doesn't bother me that much but the absence of any heavier eroticism, such as finger insertions and/or labia play reduces the appeal of this site.
That said, perhaps it's me but it seems like the models are getting more busty, are doing a lot more leg spreading than before and are, on average, prettier than in past years.
And I wish they would do something to make their videos watchable. They are usually videos of photo shoot sessions which are not nearly as interesting as the stills.
|
07-08-09 11:10pm
|
Reply
1030
|
N/A
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Poll
Nope. If it's not illegal, it's just not right. I'll let people look at my stuff with me, but I won't make a copy.
|
07-08-09 09:19am
|
Reply
1031
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I joined a Jana Jordan site (Jana Rocks) because she rocks my sox. It was not promoted as a non nude site but it turns out that it was and it is a total POS site.
But I'm into the nude female body so a site with tease before nudity is OK...but a site with no nudity might as well be a G rated tv show.
|
07-06-09 08:24am
|
Reply
1032
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
I am into the erotic female form and find nothing at all erotic about an underage girl or a model who appears to be an underage girl.
I pass on that stuff just as I pass on those BBW's who are just fat slobs.
|
07-06-09 08:17am
|
Reply
1033
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
fortherecord777's Comment
Quick question.
Is there a comprehensive search function that one can use to find models with specific attributes, such as large breasts, small breasts, blond, large labias, outdoors, etc., etc.?
|
06-22-09 11:14am
|
Reply
1034
|
I Can't Believe You Sucked A Negro
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Comment
Wasn't more than 10-15 years ago that the words Whore and Fuck were never used on a site's name.
They want to sell smut. No more, no less. Don't give it more than its due.
|
06-21-09 03:53pm
|
Reply
1035
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
The point of porn is the fantasy. The only thing that cannot be fantasy is that the babe must be at least 18 years old.
If a site posts a girl who was 19 years old at the time it was posted in 2006, should the site say that she was 19 when posted in 2006?
Personally, WGAF?. (Who Gives a Fuck?) If she was young looking back when the post happened that's all that matters anyway, isn't it?
|
06-21-09 03:49pm
|
Reply
1036
|
Porn Access
(0)
|
Reply of
Jeffrey99's Reply
Too bad they don't read PU.
Just signed up this weekend and the problems described two years ago and in this review are the same. A pity because I've stumbled into some really great stuff and some great resolution videos...and some total shit as well.
This site, with some professional website help, could be superb. Hopefully they will learn how to merge functionality with their hidden quality.
A score of 70 is very fair but with structure it could be a 90.
|
06-20-09 11:13pm
|
Reply
1037
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
Boy am I with you on that. I make it a point to always use the PU link when I'm ready to sign up for a site. They (PU) earned my loyalty big time to the point where I might even sign up via PU even if it costs me an extra $5.
|
06-20-09 07:58pm
|
Reply
1038
|
N/A
|
Reply of
careylowell's Poll
I have a brother and a sister. My brother, a professional video guy, finds porn boring so it's unlikely he would ask. By brother in law (my sister's husband) works for the US gummint so he has lots of free time at work and frequently asks me for some of my stash. Again, no problem.
|
06-15-09 12:25pm
|
Reply
1039
|
Innocent High
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Reply
I totally agree. Another excellent review by Trash Man. The network looked very promising when going onto the preview site, but thanks to Trash Man;s review it's clear that the majority of the "bonus sites" are just archived old stuff.
I'm seeing how this is becoming a more prevalant practice...advertising a big network that turns out to be a collection of dormant sites, usually with crappy quality.
|
06-15-09 12:15pm
|
Reply
1040
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Since I was burned (badly) by Danni.com 3 years ago, I have a procedure that I follow religiously when I sign up for any new site.
1. I create a Word document where I copy the URLs of the preview site and of the sign up page.
2. I use Print Screen to copy the confirmation page with the subscription number and all other details. If the confirmation page permits (they usually do) I also copy and paste it to the Word document.
3. I open a new window leaving the confirmation page open, and try to log on independently. If I succeed, then I save the Word document and close the confirmation window. If not, I find the "contact us" link and will immediately call the 800 number of CCBill or of the site to confirm that my subscription is active.
4. If I'm unsuccessful, my next call is to my credit card issuer to have them cancel...or reverse the charge.
5. I then go to PU and post a comment. Recently I had an issue with PornstarXS.com accessing their trial. I received no replies at all from their contact us contacts but I did get a response from the webmaster.
To be fair, almost every site I've joined since being screwed by Danni.com has worked perfectly and where they haven't, the 800 number has worked to get things on track.
|
06-14-09 10:08am
|
Reply
1041
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
Others have said similar things, but the issue with me is lousy quality sites. The saving grace is PU and TBP where I can check out every site before I waste my money on a crappy one.
There is no need for more hardcore sites whatsoever. We're swimming in them already. But there is a real need for new high quality hardcore sites and/or an upgrade of the mediocre hardcore sites..
|
06-12-09 02:25pm
|
Reply
1042
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
Reply of
xyzzy's Comment
Since Danni Ashe sold her site back in 2005, their support function has gone from the best in the business to the absolute worst.
If you sign up for Danni.com, do NOT expect any customer support. (Had no billing probs with their own processor.)
|
06-06-09 01:44pm
|
Reply
1043
|
Orgy Max
(0)
|
Reply of
careylowell's Review
Being 29.95 Euros, the cost of this site can vary in US$ terms (they charge your credit card in Euros, they say.) Right now it's about US$42.00. Also, their preview site claims on one place that there are 18 sites in the network, and, in another, 13 sites.
In any case I really liked the review. It told me everything I wanted to know and, because I like the same things, I'm seriously considering joining up.
|
06-06-09 10:12am
|
Reply
1044
|
Little Mutt
(0)
|
Reply of
xbigvmanx's Review
If you use the PU/TBP link to the site, you will also get the $19.95 rate for the first month...recurs at b$29.95.
|
05-31-09 12:39pm
|
Reply
1045
|
N/A
|
Reply of
james4096's Reply
Agree, but the advent of internet porn has saved me tons of $ that I once spent on video rentals, magazines and other pursuits.
|
05-30-09 10:56pm
|
Reply
1046
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
Navigation and Searching. Considering that each of us has favorite babes, studios and genres, and that search technology is highly sophisticated, it pisses me off royally when I know a model is on a site but is virtually impossible to locate.
A similar beef is inaccuracy. On a great site like Video Box the one serious flaw is the inability of the webmaster to be consistent in spelling a model's name. That makes it so damned difficult to find all the content they have. Jenna Doll, for example, shows up as Jena Doll, Jena, Jenna Dall, and probably others. And it isn't the studio's fault. The cover usually has the correct spelling. It's just sloppiness.
|
05-29-09 11:04pm
|
Reply
1047
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
Jay G said, "Storage is incredibly cheap and the numbers, I agree, don't always mean quality, but I am sure getting pickier and pickier about a "quality look" to videos. Old stuff is seldom good enough for a spoiled kid like me."
That's me. Exactly. Three or four years ago I was ok with almost anything just so long as it displayed what I wanted...plenty of PTA*.
Now, however, where the quality is so good even a gynecologist would be happy, and with a brand new Seagate 1.5 Tb hard drive ($129.99 + tax) joining my 640Gb, and two 500Gb hard drives, I'm like Jay, am totally spoiled. When I watch some of the older stuff that I used to watch over and over, I only wish it could be upgraded in quality.
The real question is, what's next? I can't imagine better quality than is now available. Maybe smell-o-vision or a form of 3-D?
*PTA - Pussy, Tits and Ass.
|
05-24-09 10:12am
|
Reply
1048
|
Naughty America
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
The $14.95 price is what made me enroll. I like the concepts and the very attractive style in particular, but I also pretty much agree with the score. The only thing that might make me up the points a bit is that the site has an unusually large number of models I like and all with original content.
|
05-23-09 12:15pm
|
Reply
1049
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Drooler: "BTW I don't have an organization issue because I do it by model name --> source --> name of video or gallery. It's the last piece there that gets the treatment every long once in a while. Some titles just need ... help!"
I do the same. The model name gets adds at the end of the name, occasionally, such as (!!!), (.)(.) or ??? [when I think the name provided by the source is inaccurate]
The source is never altered.
The file name is where I use a touch of originality if the title from the source is not descriptive, but I try to be descriptive, not humorous...unless I can be descriptive and humorous at the same time.
|
05-23-09 12:09pm
|
Reply
1050
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
BG or BGG - either one is fine with me. I want to see the babe and her assets and a good porno does that. A BBG is lousy because the two guys usually block the view so all we get to see is some guy's hairy ass and/or hairy balls, not what I watch porn to see.
|
05-20-09 11:08pm
|
