| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Well if they "decided" to scale back on their content, then they need to scale back on their pricing as well. If Mercedes decided to cut back on leather and AC, you'd expect them to adjust their price accordingly.
The value test is not necessarily how good something is, its how good it is compared to what you can get spending your money elsewhere. Dollar for dollar, this site is simply not worth the price, because you can get more and better content elsewhere for less money.
|
10-05-08 05:12am
|
Reply
2
|
Fling.com
(0)
|
Reply of
stargazinc's Reply
This is clearly a spam "reply". It would be good to have a way to report such things.
|
03-16-08 08:01am
|
Reply
3
|
Matt's Models
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Ok, well I "ass"ume he shot digitally, and he used a 1024 save-size or maybe just used a 1 megapixel camera. SLR multi-megapixel cams were mega-bucks until recently. I doubt he shoots with film or a point and shoot.
|
09-22-07 11:41am
|
Reply
4
|
Matt's Models
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Comment
Its business. Notice they have a special price?
The concept that Matt's "couldn't be better" is patently absurd, so getting 4 90s completely discredits EVERY ONE of TBP's reviews. They should consider what these deal's are doing to the integrity of their site. A good review site MUST be detached from doing business with the sites they are reviewing. While getting special deals for their readers is a good thing, the price they pay: the believability of their reviews, might be a bad financial move in the long run. They should learn a lesson from Rodney.
|
09-22-07 11:23am
|
Reply
5
|
Matt's Models
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
what I meant, is that you can't convert 1024 pixel photos to 1600 without stretching them. You can't add detail. So its just not a reasonable expectation. He'd have to reshoot.
|
09-22-07 10:23am
|
Reply
6
|
Matt's Models
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
how can he "re-publish" in 1600px? Do you want bigger, blurry pixelated photos?
|
09-22-07 08:26am
|
Reply
7
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Mayvary's Reply
I'm a professional photographer, and you're obviously some horny dude who has probably never seen a real women naked. So who is incompetent?
You can't download just the photos you want in high resolution. You have to download the entire tarball. Or at least you did when I wasted my money on the site.
|
05-31-08 08:48am
|
Reply
8
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Mayvary's Reply
Clearly you know nothing about modeling or photography. The photos are amateurish and the models aren't models because they don't know how to pose. Most of the sets don't have a single quality shot. Its a site for horny losers. 97 implies that it could not be better, which is clearly not the case.
|
05-17-08 03:14pm
|
Reply
9
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Mayvary's Review
Is this a plant? Fess up. 97? Surely you jest.
|
02-25-08 09:41am
|
Reply
10
|
MILF Hunter
(0)
|
Reply of
OUMarcus's Comment
I find the "new" sites completely useless. VIP has been part of the "Milfhunter" network for a long time.
|
12-03-07 06:42am
|
Reply
11
|
MILF Hunter
(0)
|
Reply of
mediafan's Reply
So your argument is that because its better than sites that really, really suck, its a 95? 90s ratings imply the site is the best that it can be. There's no HD or DVD quality content, slow downloads (VERY slow when you reviewed it) and an archaic password scheme. At least read what the ratings mean. A 95 implies that you don't think the site can be improved. The fact that they completely revamped the interface and got more bandwidth AFTER your review implies that even Reality Kings didn't agree with you, or they wouldn't have bothered.
|
11-21-07 08:57am
|
Reply
12
|
MILF Hunter
(0)
|
Reply of
mediafan's Review
I assume you've never been on any modern porn sites? Giving a site with so many problems a 95 is just plain irresponsible.
|
11-16-07 05:58am
|
Reply
13
|
Monsters of Cock
(0)
|
Reply of
uscue's Reply
I wrote them multiple times. Perhaps they've learned from their evil ways, but at the time you only got access to 6 sites and they stated "you get access to all of our sites". So I stand by my review.
|
08-09-07 07:38pm
|
Reply
14
|
Ox Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
Bletch's Comment
This is one of my peeves about BangBros in general. All of their "sites" say "access to ALL of our sites". But its just not the case.
|
02-16-08 07:04am
|
Reply
15
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
videobox's Reply
And May's list:
Handjobs
upskirt diaries
Wrestle with the Devil
Dicks and Dildos
Lacta-mania
Chunky on the 4th of July
Ebony Cream Pies
Black Cream Pis
booty quake
thick black and stacked
Dude, where's my dildo
There's an old business adage - decide what you want to be and be the best at it - When you try to cater to everyone you dilute the customer base that made you successful in the first place. I'm sure you know how it affects your bottom line better than I do, but be aware that there are people who want a certain type of content, and they'd rather join a site where they know that the updates will be something that interests them. I cancelled my membership after a week where there were maybe 3 scenes that interested me.
I didn't trash your site. You have a lot of good content. But if only 1/3 of the content is of interest to any given individual, then its certainly worthy of note.
|
07-17-07 07:32am
|
Reply
16
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
Clement's Reply
Now that I've been on the site awhile I have to reject your answer on the blurry videos. I've seen some of the videos on here on other sites at much higher quailty. What, did you buy lower res CDs than they did? And why are the clip pictures clear but the videos can't get close to that clarity? Clearly they've just been encoded at a lower res, probably for a day when not many people had broadband. You just haven't chosen to re-encode the CDs for modern viewing.
If you're going to use the high number of videos you have as a selling point, keeping them up to date should go hand and hand with that. I don't expect in 2010 to have 3/4 of the videos with 2005 download resolutions.
|
02-28-10 09:15am
|
Reply
17
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
james4096's Reply
If you're rating a restaurant and the waitress gets your order wrong and brings you the wrong thing and then tells you "oh, we were out of what you ordered so we gave you something else", do you give the restaurant a good rating because what they brought you wasn't terrible?
No, you give them 1 star. Because you want to get what you ordered; not something else. 50 is the lowest rating. The rating recommendations say "Not Recommended" is 50-59. If it was 1 video that was missing I'd give a higher rating. But there are a lot of them. So you search, find something you want, and then BANG, its "Coming Soon". Its a waste of time as well as annoying.
Its purposeful deceipt. So they get the lowest possible rating. The unavailable videos should be taken out of the index; for both members and would-be members.
|
02-24-10 04:10am
|
Reply
18
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
Clement's Reply
Offering a refund so you can continue to deceiver others doesn't seem like a worthy trade off. How about if I eat the $18. and see if you
1) Change your site so it no longer indicates that videos that aren't currently available are available
2) put up the videos in 2 weeks like you indicate they will be.
Then perhaps I'll consider changing my review. In the meantime, everyone who reads this has no idea which videos are available and which aren't by the current way you're doing things.
The argument that they're being re-encoded doesn't satisfy the reasoning behind bogusly indicating that the videos are available before you pay. It should say Coming Soon BEFORE people pay as well as after.
Otherwise you are a crook, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.
|
02-22-10 04:36pm
|
Reply
19
|
Vivid
(0)
|
Reply of
nadiencendia's Reply
Its fine to say you like the site, but giving a site with such terrible quality videos a 90 is simply wrong. You've totally ignored something that should be a key criteria. Obviously vivid has the capability to put up high quality videos. They don't do so on purpose. Its not like its some garage dude who can't afford a good camera. The videos aren't just not that good. They are terrible. Its a disgrace.
|
06-28-07 04:27pm
|
Reply
20
|
Vivid
(0)
|
Reply of
nadiencendia's Review
I really don't see how you can give a 90 score to this site. If all Vivid content were available in good quaility it might get that score, but its simply not the case. The "new" videos are not good quality either, in fact I found that many of the older videos had better quality. But finding them is nearly impossible. This site is a waste of money unless you're viewing the videos on an ipod.
|
06-23-07 01:03pm
|
