| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1126
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
It's tough to determine from a preview site and PU/TBP reviews frequently do not mention bit rates so if that were a really important factor in signing up, I would not be a mamber of many sites.
However, IF sites would promise a good bit rate and/or if PU/TBP reviews included that stat in the future it would be a very worthwhile addition.
|
03-07-09 09:51am
|
Reply
1127
|
Adult.com
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Reply
TrashMan, your scored list of 12 sites will be very useful going forward. Last night I was playing around with the Adult.com preview site's searches checking to see what babes were in their inventory and to see if there were titles that would be worthwhile additions to my stash.
My second search was for Anastasia Christ. First disappointment, she showed up with only two scenes. Second disappointment, one of the two was really Jane Darling (Big Boobs in Prague, Scene 3), also a babe but definitely not Anastasia. I already have the Anastasia scene in that video (she's actually in scene 4 and is identified by Adult.com as Laura Lion).
I really like the head shot index a lot but I couldn't find a title search function if there is one. (My fallback on VideoBox is to check iafd.com or CAVR.com to see a summary of titles for a babe, then search the database for those titles.)
The good news is that, after playing around with Adult.com last night, I went over to Brazzers to see if they posted the Friday update. And what did I find? A cross promotion ad for Adult.com that offered the site at $14.95 a month.
|
03-06-09 08:21am
|
Reply
1128
|
Adult.com
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
To me the most important part is that there is not too much duplication with other (Video Box) sites. I did a little research on some of my fave babes and found enough new stuff on Adult.com to make a one or two month membership very worthwhile.
Question.
I have found that the search function on other sites have been deteriorating as a result of accuracy issues:
VideoBox - Frequent misspelling (Veronika Raquel shows up on VB as Veronica, Racquel, and in one case Rakel) and out-and-out mis-identification has made VideoBox with their 6,000 DVD's a crapshoot in locating specific talent
X Movies and pornstar.com- Accuracy is not as bad as VB's, but the search takes you to the DVD, not to the scene.
VideosZ - Tracking VB in its accuracy deterioration.
What's your impression of Adult.com's accuracy? Have you had any problems finding the babes and/or seeing obvious errors?
|
03-05-09 06:44pm
|
Reply
1129
|
Leg Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Reply
I'm not big on photos, so ZIP is a secondary thing with me. I want to see the babes active, not static.
|
03-05-09 05:06pm
|
Reply
1130
|
Leg Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
Being more of a tit man than a leg man, I still appreciate a gorgeous set of gams, especially when they are well photographed (or videotaped) and the visual exploration ends up in the magic kingdom where the legs come together.
This site had my interest (especially at the $20 price point) snd is (or rather, was, after reading your review) on my short list of sites to try a one month membership.
As always, TrashMan, your reviews are very helpful and always provide me with all the info I need to make a good, informed decision.
Thanks.
|
03-05-09 03:12pm
|
Reply
1131
|
Club Silvia Saint
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Review
This looks like a "one month drain" site (a site that you sign up for and can drain all of the good stuff in one month or less).
Is that correct?
|
03-03-09 08:28am
|
Reply
1132
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Poll
The only answer is to see a creampie or, failing that, a quick, last minute pullout to avoid impregnation. The only way a guy should get jacked off in porn is with a babe's pussy muscles (or sphincter muscles).
It's really hard to imagine a guy needing to pound his own pud after a long fuck with some of the knockout gorgeous babes we see in porn.
|
03-03-09 08:25am
|
Reply
1133
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Poll
I voted WGAF (who gives a fuck) because I watch porn for the babes, not the stud monkey. So long as the paid dick doesn't mess up the view of the babe or so long as he's not totally disgusting, I really don't care.
|
03-01-09 08:12am
|
Reply
1134
|
Bangbros Network
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
One last point I forgot in my comments.
The most frequent model appearing on the site as listed in the index is shown as: Actors: eeehh... I forgot.
The problem is that, without identification even the most gorgeous babes are totally lost in the huge number of videos. One not uncommon example is a babe called Misty Mae, a young chick with a very nice set of naturals with huge, pancake sized, areolae. I downloaded her video when it appeared in an update but was unable to find out if she has any other stuff on BB.
|
02-26-09 02:00pm
|
Reply
1135
|
Bangbros Network
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
84 is a fair score. I have been a BB member off and on over the last several years. In comparison to RA and Brazzers, they haven't done well to keep pace, in particular with their search function (it sucks). (Ask for Carmella Bing and you will get some Carmella Bing along with others who are not Carmella Bing such as Riley Evans.)
And in far too many cases their identifications are misspelled or just plain inaccurate.
Their videos frequently have far too much crap in them that make them unnecessarily large (in far too many cases it takes over 5 minutes just to get to the part where the female finally arrives, then too much chatter before we get to the good stuff.
Navigation needs upgrading. Way too many clicks just to get to the point to download a video.
That said, I'm OK with the 84 score because of TrashMan's "Pro's." BB is still producing lots of very good stuff and is still a good site. But NA and Brazzers are better.
BTW, their tit classification - Real/Fake - is not totally accurate. Some babes have videos made both before and after the aftermarket enhancements were installed so a new category, "Both" is needed. Other babes have tits that have clearly been subjected to some work by a Beverly Hills surgeon but are still listed as real.
|
02-26-09 12:56pm
|
Reply
1136
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
As others have said, I had several very bad experiences until I joined PU 2 years ago. Since then I've only had two bad experiences, both were when I signed up despite there being no reviews on PU.
Lesson clearly learned. If it ain't on PU/TBP, I ain't signing up no matter how great the site looks.
[The two bummers were AngelicaCostello.com (Venus Knight) and JanaRocks.com (Jana Jordan). See my PU reviews on these two sites.]
|
02-25-09 03:27pm
|
Reply
1137
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Reply
A TGP Site is a "Thumbnail Gallery Post" site that contains a bunch of free pics and/or video clips with links to the sponsoring sites. Some can be reasonably good (KindGirls.com and asktiava.com are two that I like) but most are lousy and can be unintentional sources of malware.
|
02-23-09 05:32pm
|
Reply
1138
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Review
Good review (because it reflects, accurately, a lot of my thoughts).
The site is huge so it is impossible for anyone who has a life to check out each end every model. The boredom factor hit me as well because many (most?) sets were so similar that I got the feeling I'd seen the set before.
But the part I really appreciate about the site is elephant's observation that the site treats its models with total respect. That's a rare characteristic that shows up in very few sites.
As for me, I'm a video guy so I can't be a continuing member on a site whose videos are, mostly, recordings of photo shoots.
My other problem is that the models are identified only by first name and a number so if I really like someone and want to see if she appears on other sites, I cannot do that.
Last point. If you are into the harder side of soft core (insertions, pussy play, etc.) this site is not for you.
|
02-23-09 12:56pm
|
Reply
1139
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
I have a few that I check frequently just to see if there are any new babes or sites that I haven't discovered, but as Wittyguy says, the TGP sites are really of limited value. That's the only reason I chose the first option.
|
02-23-09 12:37pm
|
Reply
1140
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Thanks. I added the site to my favorites for future consideration. (My budget is smaller than my interest in several sites I want to sign up for.)
|
02-22-09 01:00pm
|
Reply
1141
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Review
Denner, this looks like an excellent "find." I bought my share of Fiona Cooper videos back in the day and the preview video brings back some memories. But when the preview video is like this one, lousy quality, it makes me nervous that it is a true representation of the actual quality of the full content.
Also, the preview site has photos of the models but they are not identified. Does the site properly identify the models?
Looks like a good "one month" site. (A site that warrants just a one month membership to provide an opportunity to drain it of the good stuff, then move on.)
|
02-22-09 10:54am
|
Reply
1142
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
NO. $30 is my max. Period. And a $30 site must have outstanding reviews for me to bite. But I will never pay #35 a month for any site. If they are stupid enough to overcharge for their site, I'll let them wait until they wake up and figure out that a $30 price will make them a whole helluva lot richer than a $35 price.
|
02-21-09 10:21pm
|
Reply
1143
|
Naughty America
(0)
|
Reply of
monty2222's Reply
Monty, either they are monitoring the PU site and added Victoria right after I entered my reply or I simply missed it when I checked the public site...because her name is there (as you said) and the preview clip is similar to the one I found on AskTiava.com. (I suspect it was my error, not a last minute fix by NA.
So NA passed that test perfectly (but I didn't). Thanks for that.
The basic style of the NA site is quite similar to the style of RK, BB and Brazzers but it looks like a big notch better in its design.
I'll be spending $25 on a membership tomorrow (when I have more time to explore and download).
Thanks for your help.
|
02-20-09 11:40am
|
Reply
1144
|
Naughty America
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Reply
Thanks. Now the last issue. Accuracy.
Using Gianna as an example, one site (Video Box) spells her name three ways; Giana, Gianna and Jianna and has some videos with Gianna in them but she's not listed at all. To find all of Gianna Michaels' stuff one must try all the various spellings in a search and then check every video in the inventory.
Brazzers has an outstanding babe (Victoria Vonn) who can be found only by paging through all of their content because she's not listed in their index at all.
So because I'm now very interested in the Naughty America site, I decided to do some testing.
I checked on AskTiava.com and, lo and behold, there's a clip there from a Naughty America site, Neighbor Affair. When I went to the Naughty America main preview site and did a search for Victoria Vonn, I came up dry.
So then I went to the Neighbor Affair site. I found Victoria Vonn in the list of models and a link to her video on that site.
Thus it looks like NA has the same problem with accuracy in its indexing function as other sites do.
While perfection is an unrealistic expectation, sloppiness in indexing is a big problem with me. The search function for NA is terrific, but if it isn't accurate then what's the point?
The NA site looks great, but with a sloppy indexing process, I would find it hard to give it a score of 100.
|
02-20-09 09:00am
|
Reply
1145
|
Naughty America
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
Great review, although I have yet to see anything worthy of a 100. 99 maybe, but 100?
One thing you didn't mention in either your review or in your replies is the accuracy of the search capabilities of the various sites.
VideoBox is sloppy in identifying the models in each video. Way too often they misname a babe in a video which makes it nearly impossible to find all scenes for that babe. Brazzers.com is also rather bad at that as well. Bang Bros has an inefficient search capability and seems to have a bad time spelling even simple model names. RK, while they have an "intelligent search" capability similar to what you describe for NA, they also have accuracy issues.
TrashMan, can you comment on how accurate NA's identification and labeling efforts are? When I find a babe I want to see more of, I want to be reasonably confident that the search function is accurate so I don't have to look for the needle in the haystack.
Again, thanks for a superb, well written review. Love your stuff.
|
02-20-09 08:20am
|
Reply
1146
|
Stunners
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
Is the trial a full access trial or is it limited?
|
02-19-09 11:54am
|
Reply
1147
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
If a combined rating is less than 70/70 and the last review is no more than 12 month old, the site is DOA for me. There are way too many 70+ sites at reasonable prices that I want to explore.
The higher the combined score the lower my price resistance but I still stop at $30 max per month. So a 90+ point site that wants $35 of my hard earned money, they won't see it.
Case in point, DDFBusty has a combined score of 91.6(5)/86.9 and has a knockout preview site, but at $34.95 it's overpriced by definition. The minute it drops to $29.95, I'm there.
|
02-17-09 05:25pm
|
Reply
1148
|
Diabolic
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Reply
The IAFD tip is perfect. Thanks.
The title search seems to work accurately so what I'll do is download a complete index from the tour page and use it to create my own model search capability.
|
02-15-09 11:04am
|
Reply
1149
|
Diabolic
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
Outstanding review, once again, TrashMan.
I surfed the preview site. The search feature by model is not too terrific, nor is the model index itself.
For example, one of my favorites, Gianna Michaels, appears in "Heavy Duty" but the model listing does not include Gianna Michaels; just Gianna and Gianna Lynn, neither of which show the "Heavy Duty" DVD.
That said, the site looks great for grabbing videos that are not otherwise available on the web and at $35, while high, isn't bad for a load of new stuff.
Based on your review, I'm planning to go for the 3-day trial to give the site a test drive. If it delivers the quality for the recent stuff I'll pop $34.95 for a full month and grab what I can.
BTW, if I find a better way to use the search to find specific babes, I will report back.
|
02-15-09 10:29am
|
Reply
1150
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
It depends on the size of the site.
On some single model sites it doesn't take too long to totally drain everything. On others I would need a bunch of 2Tb external drives and a lot of 24/7 effort to download everything.
On the smaller sites I will sign up, then do a total drain, then cancel. If the site is still active and posts updates I'll keep an eye on it and grab whatever is posted before the membership is expired.
My objective is to have a good collection of hot babes so when the Federal government steps in in the next year or so with censorship and/or taxes I'll have a good supply to keep me happy.
|
02-15-09 09:36am
|
