| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
151
|
Hush Pass
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from MsApril:
(otoh's Reply)
Thank you! :) Sorry for my late reply, the holiday season left me tired & idle for a while.
|
01-06-12 07:34am
|
Reply
152
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#14
from Khan:
(otoh's Reply)
otoh, to understand that you really need to look at the evolution of the site.
In the early days, trust ratings especially and polls to a lesser extent were seen as important for users. Later on, answering polls were dropped as one of the ways to earn raffle tickets (with the exception of the one badge earned after answering 50).
The forum was added quite a while after the site launched. It was at users' request and was a way for users to get to know one another and to discuss subjects related to their porn buying hobby.
But remember, the main function of the site is, and has always been, the reviews (and comments) about the pay sites we list. When you understand that PU was an outgrowth of TBP then that's easier to keep in mind.
So, while we won't rule out *ever* giving rewards for forum participation, we have no immediate plans to do so. The general feeling (when the subject comes up) is that offering raffle tickets just for posting would add more posts without really adding to the quality of the discussions in the forum.
Hope that helps you better understand the reasoning behind our decision.
|
01-04-12 02:24pm
|
Reply
153
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from rearadmiral:
(otoh's Reply)
I understand that subjectivity makes up a big part of any score, but... what makes a better review is when the writer explains the reasons for those biases. You definitely did that. Met Art is one of the most respected sites out there but thanks to your clear explanation of why you don't like it I'm 99% sure that I wouldn't like it either.
I'll take a peek at Juliland. Thanks for the tip.
|
12-31-11 06:53am
|
Reply
154
|
She Don't Blush
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
from tangub:
Yes it certainly works out an expensive site when you consider its probably 15 euros for one evening's entertainment because that's all it would take me to download and view 50 odd photo sets.
|
12-31-11 05:04am
|
Reply
155
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Review
from rearadmiral:
otoh (and I mean no disrespect for the other members who also reviewed this site), but this is the best Met Art review I've read! Like you, Met Art has been on the list of sites to consider but regularly got bumped down by something else. But thanks to your review I'm going to remove it permanently from the list. You succinctly and clearly build a case for why I shouldn't join, but you also build a case for why someone may want to join. I prefer harder sites but have nothing against soft sites, but when I read your line that the site "seems to be to emphasise the beauty of the models at the expense of any sexuality" that really made your point clear. And when you wrote "there is little teasing, no touching, and rarely even a lewd glance" that finished any interest that I may have had in the site.
I'm sure there are many people who would love Met Art's style of porn, but I'm not one of them. Thanks for saving me $30!
|
12-30-11 12:31pm
|
Reply
156
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Review
from Denner:
Met Art is our old time kind-of-site here, for sure.
And the fact that this site just keeps going on and on with so many updates is just great....but:
Like otoh points out in the bottom line area hits the fan:
"..........that the material here just isn't exciting."
Exactly!
Met Art is a goldmine for models - but it drowns in some weird kind of massiveness - too much, but not too sexy/erotic.
A lot - lately tends to be way too: la,la,la in order to keep up the massive updates. Jeeeez, no problems with massive updates....but may be it's a question of quantity/quality...
Thanks, otoh - FINE review!!!
|
12-30-11 09:07am
|
Reply
157
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Capn:
(otoh's Reply)
No, I don't think so.
I share your concerns.
Perhaps that was what gave me an element of unease whilst browsing the site.
With a few sites the personality of the model leaps out at you, which I really like.
With a lot of others it is noticeable, here it appears to be dourly supressed, in the name of 'art'.
Not good!
Cap'n. :0/
|
12-30-11 07:41am
|
Reply
158
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Review
from Capn:
I agree with you, otoh.
It is another one of those frustratingly 'nearly' sites.
Rather than striving to crash through the barrier and make a rivetting site, they do more, more & more of the same, which obviously does work for some folk.
This only serves to add more to the frustration for the likes of ourselves wanting a step or two beyond.
What I found most frustrating was that the thumbnails for each set looked identical after a little while searching.
I think it is a problem with sites that have pretentions of 'art'.
Cap'n :0/
|
12-30-11 04:18am
|
Reply
159
|
Petites Parisiennes
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
from BradlyH:
That Make up Video was good. But Hannah's in September is still the best in my book !
|
12-26-11 12:01pm
|
Reply
160
|
Secretease
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Capn:
(otoh's Reply)
I thought it might appeal, that is why I bumped it up.
The comparison to the 'Only' sites was based more on the uniform / costume angle, which in all honesty I think they do much better, as that is their main strength. That and the fact neither feature nudity, by my stricter definition.
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-21-11 09:23am
|
Reply
161
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from LePornoisseur:
(otoh's Reply)
Otoh...no music on any of the clips I dl'ed, thankfully. I can't stand the ones with music-beds either (mostly because I edit my videos to the portions I enjoy). The quality on the vids has improved since I was last a member. Much higher resolution now.
|
12-18-11 12:22pm
|
Reply
162
|
The Rubber Clinic
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Ergo Proxy:
(otoh's Reply)
All their files in the Adobe Media Format which sucks a little bit. So you have to install the Adobe Player and cannot watch unless connected to the internet because they have to check the DRM shit when you start playing. So when your membership stops you are screwed. Recently they state that the DRM unlocking is valid for 5 years after cancellation but I cannot confirm this statement. I am not sure if I already made a comment on the site but anyhow their staff is pretty much limited, they have about 3-4 actresses I think and the guy is always the same. But what really bothered me was that the ladies are bad actors and concerning the catheter and pissing stuff they are somewhat inconsequent. For the girls I think they often fake the catheter insertions (pretty easy to do here) and concerning the piss drinking it's completely fake and what about piss enemas? They don't do them, at least when I was a member they didn't. I don't want to bash them here but if you want to do "extreme" clinical play you should pull it through completely. Sadly there is no comparable site for this stuff on the market which does it better (at least for the clinical play). Maybe I am prejudiced against this site but these were my gut feelings when I was a member some time ago.
|
12-15-11 11:03am
|
Reply
163
|
The Rubber Clinic
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
from RustyJ:
Not many good latex hardcore sites around although I too must admit that all the pissing and stuffing metal poles into cocks on that site is a huge turn off for me.
Any idea if the DRM comment below is still valid?
|
12-15-11 02:14am
|
Reply
164
|
Ero Berlin
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from BadMrFrosty:
(otoh's Reply)
Both eroberlin and femjoy feature a lot of sets taken outside in various locations but I would not consider these locations on either site to be public or risky. Think fields, empty beaches, deserted country roads etc
|
12-13-11 12:50am
|
Reply
165
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
from RLane:
Yea, I noticed new updates have 10000px and that's an awesome way for a new subscription from me.
|
12-11-11 05:21pm
|
Reply
166
|
Riding Boots
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Capn:
(otoh's Reply)
Yes, it gets repetetive really quickly.
If only they would apply a similar approach to a wider variety of outfits, the appeal would broaden considerably.
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-06-11 12:20pm
|
Reply
167
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Review
from mbaya:
I really loved your review. This is a site I would consider and your details about it were truly informative.
|
12-03-11 04:40am
|
Reply
168
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#23
from gaypornolover:
(otoh's Reply)
LOL I hope so!
|
12-02-11 08:12pm
|
Reply
169
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Jay G:
(otoh's Reply)
I thought face at first, but your answer "eyes - a lascivious look " is much better.
|
12-02-11 04:03am
|
Reply
170
|
Juliland
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Capn:
(otoh's Reply)
I remember being harangued at ATKNH for daring to suggest that 100 - 120 shots was quite sufficient for a comprehensive photoset! ;0)
Cap'n. :0)
|
11-25-11 08:08am
|
Reply
171
|
Vivid Parodies
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
from Capn:
Actually, that is quite intriguing! :0)
|
11-24-11 12:19pm
|
Reply
172
|
Glamazones
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Drooler:
(otoh's Reply)
I've been a member of TLE. It was kind of too early probably. Oughta check it out again ...
|
11-20-11 05:02pm
|
Reply
173
|
Holly Randall
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from bebelover:
(otoh's Reply)
Thanks! I will definitely check it out.
|
11-10-11 04:47pm
|
Reply
174
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#22
from Jay G:
(otoh's Reply)
I've done lots of stuff, sure ("Sofa" would be a great answer), but none of the things mentioned. Guess I just am not creative enough.....
|
11-06-11 01:51am
|
Reply
175
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from rearadmiral:
(otoh's Reply)
That's another great one. That whole scene is great.
|
11-05-11 08:38am
|
