| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
51
|
Aunt Judy's
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Advent:
(standard's Reply)
Wow!!! She is gorgeous. I looked all through I system to see if I could find here because I wanted to see her as well. No luck. I see on the photo is says that is licensed content so my thought would be that once their contract ran out for the photos they removed them from the site.
It also seems the site you found it one is an older affiliate site. I'm sorry I could not be more help.
|
10-05-15 12:57pm
|
Reply
52
|
Aunt Judy's
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from Advent:
I would like to thank you for your review. It seems you really did go through the site with a fine tooth comb. No pun intended.....well may just a little. :) Most of the content you are seeing that focuses on hairy is content pulled from our hairy site. As a bonus, well you may not think it is, to our members we pull from our network of sites when a woman is over 30 she is pulled over to Aunt Judy's. It gives our members content that was not specifically shot for Aunt Judy's but because the model is over 30 we thought it would be nice for the members to enjoy her content as well.
We provide the bonus content in addition to the 21 updates of original exclusive content per week. The bonus content never takes the place of an exclusive update.
When we took over management of the site in 2012 there were some issues with pulling over all of the content. So sometimes you will see models with photos but no video or vice versa. Instead of removing the content all together we decided just to keep what we had.
Again, thank you for taking time to write a review of the site. We do use member comments to make the site better so I do appreciate it.
|
10-02-15 09:04am
|
Reply
53
|
Aunt Judy's
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from Wittyguy:
Great review on a site that probably won't see much of the light of day around here.
|
10-01-15 01:00pm
|
Reply
54
|
Fake Hub
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from host2626:
"- A few pros, but mostly girl (and some boy) next door types."
Don't get fooled by the settings. All the girls are pro actresses. Granted, some are more attractive or more famous than others, but all are pros. "Civilians" don't happen to wander onto a set and then within minutes start sucking dick with a camera in their face.
Agree about fakehospital, horrible angles, distorting fish eye view, nothing to keep or come back to.
All in all, there is nothing on this network I'd come back to.
PublicAgent may have been good, if I were into face and dick closeups.
FakeTaxi/UK is all about the same bad angles, face, dick and guy ass closeups.
|
04-25-15 12:49am
|
Reply
55
|
Pornstar Network
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from jd1961:
FYI, you can download every video on this site, including the ones requiring upgrade, by using firefox and a streaming downloader addon such as "Download Flash and Video" or "Download Helper".
|
02-21-15 09:03am
|
Reply
56
|
Pornstar Network
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from rearadmiral:
I had joined this site a while back when joining through TBP gave you the upgrade for free. That free upgrade is no longer offered. What I didn't realize was how useless the PSN membership is without that upgrade. I was planning to rejoin soon thinking that it wouldn't be too bad, but after reading your review I think I'll reconsider that. You just saved me some money and frustration. Thanks!
|
02-10-15 06:08pm
|
Reply
57
|
Pornstar Network
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from host2626:
+1 for starting with Ryan Conner :)
|
02-10-15 10:22am
|
Reply
58
|
Nextdoor Models
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from Drooler:
Enjoyed the review. Have been a member a couple of times. It's true what you say about the sameness of the settings and clothes.
Two gripes that I have with the site are 1. the oversized watermark, which sometimes competes with the girl and/or one of her fine features, and sometimes wins, and 2. the excessive repetition of the same or similar poses in galleries that go from 150 pics and up.
But there are girls there I've not seen anywhere else, and some of them are pretty hot.
|
11-23-14 07:50am
|
Reply
59
|
Mommy Blows Best
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Comment
from blahman2:
thanks for review. helped a lot ;)
|
09-07-12 09:55pm
|
Reply
60
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review from standard:
An update:
I've figured out what looks to be a workaround for a download manager, but I won't post any hints until after my month has run out. Sorry if that seems jerkish, but I don't want them "fixing" it until my time is up.
So, technically, "download managers: yes, should work" is accurate. Using them isn't simple or intuitive, which ultimately means they are discouraged.
Comically, even at the blazing 150KB/s speeds they provide, it's probably possible to download all ~350 videos in their "high WMV" format in a month. Let that give you some idea of the size and quality of the clips. One can assume Private has access to their own original DVDs, so it makes no sense why most of the clips should be so small and of such poor quality.
I was initially impressed with the compact size of their 1080p encodings until I reached a fast-motion and/or high-contrast section. Size-wise they did a good job, but the quality suffered greatly (single pass?) and I decided I'd rather download non-HD without their artifacts and blockiness rather than waste time on their subpar HD material.
There are ads for other sites (Reality Kings was one IIRC) inside the members area. I'd mark 20 more points off their score for this if I were allowed to. Paying members shouldn't have to look at non-related site ads. If you want to double-dip with advertisements then you should reduce the price. Ad-free price and ad-supported price, perhaps?
Their search/actress links are next to useless. It's almost like they don't know who is in their scenes and instead used broad catch-alls to connect names to scenes. "That lady is blonde and it looks like she's got a tattoo on her ankle," someone at Private.com must've said, "and Kathia Nobili is blonde and she has a tattoo on her stomach, so let's put them both under the Nobili link." Horrible.
And more points off for way too heavy a focus on their not-really-that-erotic snow/beach niche scenes. I bet they are ~15% of all the clips on the site.
(Frankly, I suspect no real time was put into this site and they just ripped whatever movies they had left in a cardboard box after breaking down their 2007 AVN awards promo booth. The website probably started with the moving of some folding chairs and a crumpled up vinyl banner.)
Hey, look at them having sex in the snow! Hey, more snow! Oh good, a snowmobile for them to have sex on. Look, a beach! More beaches! Wow, even more beaches! Hey, a boat! Another boat! Awesome! Oh good, snow again. Holy crap, that guy is wearing a bigfoot costume with the crotch cut out (yep, seriously). C'mon, Private. You were classy. You were the best. Act like it.
I can't say it enough- Don't join. Not even for a month. You'll be disappointed.
|
06-19-11 06:01pm
|
Reply
61
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from williamj:
no wonder why their stock is trading at 75 cents
|
06-13-11 05:01am
|
Reply
62
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from Denner:
When the Swede, Berth Milton started the Private corporation back many years ago when porn was YOUNG - he did the best in his field: Gorgeous models doing solo, lez and hc/bg (among others) - mostly - or rather only photosets in the beginning.
So it's kind of strange that Private on the internet front is what it is today....Lousy - with low resolution vids, bad buildup and support of a paysite that COULD have been a SERIOUS alternative to sites like 21Sextury and the (former) DDF....and quite a few others since then.
Some things went terrible wrong, ALAS!!!
|
06-12-11 07:31am
|
Reply
63
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from Thomas20:
Plus when I was a member they had drm too, although I think they have abandoned that now. So not only did you get low res material they ran out at the end of the month. I ended up picking up almost all of it later on at VideoBox just like standard says.
Even the magazine section was average with only the recent years in good quality. All the older stuff looked like screen scans so they couldn't even get that right.
|
06-12-11 02:53am
|
Reply
64
|
Private.com
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#9
from slutty:
(standard's Reply)
No problem, just a pet peeve of mine! All of my friends do the same thing...
Again, welcome to PU, looking forward to hearing more from you.
|
06-11-11 10:55pm
|
Reply
65
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from Drooler:
It's weird how some of the brand names in porn get consistently low web site reviews again and again, for years. Wicked is another.
|
06-11-11 05:42am
|
Reply
66
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from Capn:
An informative & well reasoned review.
Welcome to PU. :0)
I think what we are seeing here, is the results of a half hearted attempt made by a short sighted company to enter the modern virtual media.
Cap'n. :0/
|
06-11-11 02:28am
|
Reply
67
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from RustyJ:
Thanks for the review and welcome. Too bad Private isn't doing any better on digital age as it's my all time favorite studio.
|
06-10-11 11:50pm
|
Reply
68
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from slutty:
hey standard, welcome to PU, nice review.
Too bad download managers still don't work here. I also thought this site was pretty crappy for what you get.
Did you really only get 150kbps, or do you mean 150 KB/s? I seem to recall getting decent DL speeds here, and 150 kbps is aweful...
|
06-10-11 10:49pm
|
Reply
69
|
Private.com
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
from rearadmiral:
Thanks for the review. i found it interesting and informative. I'm a big fan of Private stuff and often wondered about joining. But based on your experience I won't bother.
Two comments:
1) Private seems to have at least two levels of material. Let's say A list and B list. I find that almost none of the A list stuff makes it to Videobox, though some of it does.
2) This seems to be another example of a studio site that begrudginly puts material on the internet. I really don't understand this. The internet isn't the future anymore, it's the present. People want material on the internet now. Having crappy websites with slow downloads won't help any company.
|
06-10-11 07:11pm
|
