| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
176
|
Exploited College Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from pat362:
Since I haven't been a member in many years than I can't be 100% sure but I suspect the guy behind this site and backroom casting couch has not changed his style since when I was last a member so I can tell you that it's fake. That's not to say that some of the women who appear here aren't also college students but that is incidental to the scene because for all intense and purposes they are amateur porn performers. The one thing this guy has going for him is that the women he hires are all amateurs to most porn fans. My gut feeling is that many of the women are cam models looking to increase their profile and by creating a larger fan base for their cam career. Not being a fan of cam sites makes it hard for me to confirm that comment but one thing is certain. The vast majority(about 99.9%) never do any other porn scenes.
Some of the girls are quite nice looking but for me the POV, bad camera angles and blurting of the male performer make most of the scene unwatchable and that's why I have never returned to this site or backroom casting couch.
|
10-08-16 07:01pm
|
Reply
177
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from lk2fireone:
By the way:
This is an excellent review of Femjoy.
As usual.
Nice details, good site overview.
|
10-07-16 01:11am
|
Reply
178
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from lk2fireone:
This is not a comment directly about your review, but something I noticed about the PU site.
You mentioned that your earlier review of Femjoy expired.
I was curious to see how your earlier review of Femjoy compared to your current review.
When I looked at the Femjoy review pages, I did not find your earlier review of Femjoy.
It was not listed.
However, when I looked at your listing of reviews (under the skippy list of review pages), I did find the expired review of Femjoy by skippy.
No big thing. But software for PU seems buggy, because your expired review of Femjoy should be listed under the Femjoy listing of reviews.
However, there are so many past reviews of Femjoy, that one (or more) missing reviews is not terribly important.
|
10-07-16 12:37am
|
Reply
179
|
Tiny 4K
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from lk2fireone:
Excellent review.
Lots of nice details and opinions.
Review is easy to read. Well organized. Gives a good overview of the site and network.
|
10-03-16 11:11pm
|
Reply
180
|
POVD
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from elephant:
Yeah that really sucks, thanks for the warning, really should expect full excess for that price, I think they get miles more signing up if they offered all sites on a network like reality kings, or bring price to $14.99 a site or $39.99 for full network. This with compete with rivals and they see lots more signing up. Hope you get it resolved.
|
08-17-16 06:33am
|
Reply
181
|
Morey Studio
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from Morey Studio:
Note: the following is from Craig Morey, photographer and owner of Moreystudio.com:
Just want to thank Skippy for a very nice, in-depth and thoughtful review, and also want to confirm and clarify a few things. MoreyStudio.com has actually been around since 1999, and (with a few exceptions for “guest artists”) almost all the content is exclusive and shot by me. Also, we have agreements with a few other great sites, and trade sets with them, such as Michelle7 and Didier Carre. Morey Studio is one of the few independent glamour sites still operating, based in the US - and not part of the big conglomerates. We don’t buy content from anyone.
A few folks have mentioned that some of our content is similar to what used to be found on LSGModels.com (now defunct) and that is accurate - I was one of the owners of LSG from its inception until around 2010. During that time, my full photo sets were updated to LSG, while small sampler sets would appear on MoreyStudio.com. Since LSG is gone, I’m posting the original full sets on my own site, plus of course all the new stuff I’ve been shooting since 2010. So we’ve got a combination of brand new content with brand new models, in addition to ALL my photos that were previously on LSG.
We also have a lot of artistic black & white sets, from my days in the Art world, and I also sell art prints (mostly on Ebay). Site members can get a discount on any of the art prints.
About our videos: The video content we post is a mixture of new HD stuff that I shoot during photo sessions, plus some newly released, behind-the-scenes clips from my Prague sessions. This is all exclusive video footage that was never posted anywhere before. (I do not post the old LSG video content, since that is owned by someone else) As Skippy mentioned, a lot of the videos show the photo sessions in progress, interactions with the models, etc, and are of interest to anyone who likes to see how these photo shoots are done and what the models are like when they aren’t posing. I don’t make the fake orgasm videos that were on LSG (frankly, never cared for those…) and we don’t overlay any corny music on the clips - what you hear is what was going on during the shoots.
One other nice touch we offer is a direct feedback connection to the site admins and to me personally. If members have questions or complaints, there’s a Feedback link on each member home page that gets directed right to my inbox. And I answer every single inquiry.
Again, many thanks to Skippy and other reviewers, and to the staff at Best Porn.
Craig Morey, San Francisco
|
08-10-16 11:36am
|
Reply
182
|
Morey Studio
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from tangub:
Great review Skippy. I've looked at this site a few times but the thing that stops me joining is that a lot of the content looks like the same content that appeared on LSG Models between 2006-2010 as Drooler mentioned in a previous comment. Even looking at the very latest updates of models like Nikita, Ivana and Katerina they appear to be the same photo sets that I downloaded from LSG when I had my membership there in 2010 so much like MC Nudes are doing Morey seems to be passing off as new updates photo shoots that are in fact somewhere around 6 to 10 years old.
Since LSG is no longer online in effect you are probably correct in saying it's exclusive content for anyone who has never had a membership at LSG. Your review got me looking up my old LSG content again and I'm thinking now that some of these models look pretty hot. I think I may have been a bit harsh on my review of LSG back then.
|
08-10-16 03:15am
|
Reply
183
|
Naked Gymnast
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from rearadmiral:
An interesting review of an unusual site.
Two years ago I joined a similar site called Naked Gym Girls and my reaction was mostly like your reaction to this site. The only difference was that I joined NGG to get additional stuff from two models I was (or still am) obsessed with. Like you I thought the site probably wasn't worth it for anyone casually dropping in.
|
03-24-16 04:03am
|
Reply
184
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from greg909:
Hmm, I think I'd rather do a 1 month subscription for just 1 month a year. Most of Hegre's sets are of a girl standing around against a grey backdrop - filling a small portion of the frame. He's the most boring, unimaginative photographer on the net. Great image quality, though!
|
02-13-16 09:10am
|
Reply
185
|
Teen Models
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from exotics4me:
I had forgotten about this site until I saw your comment. This is all just me thinking out-loud, but I used to talk to their webmaster on a weekly basis. That was back in 2009-2010. Somewhere around late 2010, I stopped receiving replies from him and haven't heard from him since. It was a site with tons of potential when it first started out. He was very passionate about making the site good. If I remember correctly, he was a businessman who had never been involved in any kind of porn before this site. He loved getting feedback from members, tips on up and coming models and even in his site design and functionality. He had two of the top photographers working for the site back then, but as you're seeing, everything just suddenly stopped and dropped off. I'll send him an email, but won't hold my breath on him replying.
|
02-11-16 11:25pm
|
Reply
186
|
Tiny 4K
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from rearadmiral:
(skippy's Reply)
Thanks for the comment. Coincidentally I'm thinking that I'll be rejoining soon. I look forward to reading any additional comments you have.
|
12-27-15 12:21pm
|
Reply
187
|
Erito
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from elephant:
What I don't get either is whats so offensive about part of the human body. It does seem weird that they clearly love porn too over there as they make so much.
|
12-19-15 01:39am
|
Reply
188
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from LPee23:
ALS's redesign several years ago is one of the only ones that I really liked. Too often redesigns actually ditch good features or leave behind a portion of content. I haven't checked out MetArt's redesign, but I see where you guys are coming from with the complaints.
|
12-13-15 06:51pm
|
Reply
189
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from lk2fireone:
I agree the old format is much easier and simpler to use.
Plus, it's the once I've been accustomed to.
Separately, the new format can mess up the intro page.
A few days ago, the new format page came up automatically, and everything was in tiny size. The thumbnails were tiny, the text size was tiny, and there were 2 black bars on the sides of the page that took up most of the page.
I sent an email to Met-Art support, asking how to get rid of the page and return to the old format.
Support emails me back, within a few hours, but their reply was not useful. They said they could not duplicate the effect that I was seeing for the Met-Art page.
I increased the size of the page using the VIEW-ZOOM option on my Firefox browser, and that allowed me to find the icon to return to the old format. (I couldn't read the page in the new format since everything was so tiny, except for the 2 black bars which were taking up most of the page.)
Anyway, I will use the old format as long as I can.
|
12-13-15 02:19pm
|
Reply
190
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from mbaya:
I am still using the old format. I find it easier and simpler.
I did not pay any attention to the Beta version pushing the live girls section in my face, as that doesn't interest me.
What I did find was that the Beta version name tag was different for the same photo depending on which version you download from. I ended up with duplicates. So it is not so easy to change to the Beta.
|
12-13-15 08:52am
|
Reply
191
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from Drooler:
The new format is fresh and new, but I can think of some things that meet that description but are less than appealing. ;)
I went through a bit of puzzlement before I figured out how to use the new zip download interface. It's a bit more work than the older version. Of all things to push more out of view, that was not the best choice.
What I haven't seen in the new setup is the option to increase the size of the thumbnails when you're viewing the contents of a photo gallery. I'd checked through the user settings to see if they'd done that, but I didn't find anything. If you ask me, the thumbs are too small.
ALS Scans, which is under the MetArt umbrella, does a better job at thumbnail size. Could the child be the father to the man?
I'm sticking with "classic" MetArt for as long as I can. And the "live girls" will go on living without me.
|
12-13-15 08:38am
|
Reply
192
|
The Life Erotic
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from Monahan:
Excellent review. I've been thinking about signing up for a while but I just got an email offering $9.95 recurring. So I decided to skip the supersized Big Mac and spend the money on this site to check it out.
Besides it's healthier. A porn site has fewer calories and saturated fat than a Big Mac with Fries.
|
12-05-15 12:05pm
|
Reply
193
|
Playboy.tv
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from rearadmiral:
(skippy's Reply)
Thanks to the staff here at TBP, especially Mike, there was a solution. I didn’t get the refund I was asking for but I was compensated. I still think my request for a refund of the annual membership and me paying for a one-month membership was a reasonable request. As I understand it both Playboy TV and Brazzers are under the same company though the individual sites are owned separately. The parent company obviously couldn’t persuade the Playboy TV site owner to issue a refund so they compensated me with a membership at Brazzers. The parent company didn’t need to do that so I am grateful for their generous offer.
I wouldn’t exclude joining Playboy TV because of my issue. I made a mistake and if I was paying attention I wouldn’t have made that mistake. Think of it as being like not noticing a pre-selected cross-sell. I think the Playboy join page is a little misleading in that the TBP one-month discount is highlighted but the annual membership is pre-selected. But still, I should have paid more attention.
Thanks for asking.
|
12-05-15 07:38am
|
Reply
194
|
Erotic Snap
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from Amanda:
Hi skippy! We are reaching out to the sponsor to see what's up. I'll post here when we get a reply. :)
|
12-04-15 06:19am
|
Reply
195
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#3
from RipRap:
(skippy's Reply)
I'm with you Skippy! I guess the "innerrweb" doesn't reach everyone, even porn connoisseurs like us.
|
11-25-15 03:08pm
|
Reply
196
|
Twistys
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from graymane:
Well guess what? According to a recent promo gracing my mailbox:
Twisty was/is offering an unprecedented member invitation (not for just a trivial $10) wherein (quote) "one couldn't go wrong" ..but now at half that amount ($5).
Maybe its because that option now requires a six month up-front payment of $70.
Beware, ......caveats could be hidden about everywhere.
|
11-13-15 12:35am
|
Reply
197
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from sonofzog:
This is a most excellent and helpful review. I was a huge Met-Art fan back in the day but it looks like I stopped in late 2010. Over time I've gotten more and more into video, mostly hardcore, but I miss those gorgeous women and have given serious thought to resubscribing. Your review pushes me closer and closer to doing that. Thanks.
And the discount doesn't hurt.
|
11-08-15 01:07pm
|
Reply
198
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from Drooler:
Yes, anything below 2000 px is definitely shrimpy these days (unless the viewing area is a mobile). I don't understand why they haven't addressed this yet. It's not that technically challenging.
|
10-29-15 04:58pm
|
Reply
199
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
from tangub:
Good comment skippy and I totally agree with you. I've never been a member of Femjoy and it is exactly for this reason that they don't offer a decent mid-sized photo size. I've been a member of all those other sites you mentioned in your post and have to agree that as a collector I find the 2000 photo size the perfect compromise between quality and file size. I would sign up straight away if they upgraded the medium sized photos.
|
10-29-15 11:41am
|
Reply
200
|
Team Skeet
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
from Divinx:
With current misleading previews in many a site, it has become my custom to visit the link "Webmasters". Very useful to ascertain what network the site belongs to.
|
10-22-15 01:43pm
|
