| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from pat362:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Let me first say that I hope you don't think that I want to pick a fight with you. I enjoy your reviews. I just tend to target anyone who gives a near perfect score but doesn't put a lot of info in the review.
I respect the reasons you gave for your score but I just find that giving a site a near perfect score without corroborating facts makes the review less relevant than it probably deserves. Some people will look at your review and see an extremely high score but then read very little information to justify that score. You are honest about being biased and that is a credit to you but someone reading your review may decide that the score is too high for what was written and pass on what might have been a really good site. I know that I am always leery of any review with a high score and no infoto go along with the score. We all have some sites that we think are as perfect as they can be and we gladly give them a high score. I just try to add as much information as possible to justify that score and maybe help bring traffic to that site.
|
01-12-13 08:06am
|
Reply
27
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from pat362:
I respect your score and the reason why you gave it. I guess this is your first time but you if you do comeback then you may not find that your score remains the same. DDF used to be one of the best networks but that was many years ago. These days they are but a mere shadow of their old self. I don't think they still do that but it was common for them to use the content from one site to update another site. They were subtle about it. They would remove older content and then after a little while it would appear on another site.
They don't update as often as they used to and that has also been for quite some time. They also started using leased material which was a new thing for them. Greta if you are unaware of that material but not so much when you already have it. I think that it's is an amazing network for a first timer but a past member might not think so. I know I don't and I'm a past member.
I think your review could definetely use a lot more data in the pro section.
|
01-11-13 06:43pm
|
Reply
28
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from boredsurfer:
Thanks for the heads-up! I hate when a site does that sort of thing. No excuse for it in this era of competition from almost everywhere! Maybe you could get away with that ten years ago, but now? Feh. I'll just go elsewhere! thanks for helping me not to waste my money!
|
08-28-12 12:20am
|
Reply
29
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from xexbot:
Download limits are always suspicious to me. On the one hand I can see where a solo artist may do this just to try to keep people around an extra month. I mean, c'mon, a girl's gotta make a living and you kind of expect it from the sex trade industry. But then there's those sites that just look low-rent and shady, and I think you have found a great example of this.
|
06-11-12 11:22pm
|
Reply
30
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Claypaws:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Perhaps what they would gain by making it easier would be a higher recommendation. If a site irritates the hell out of me, I am not going to stay or rejoin in a hurry. I would just cherry pick for the one and only month they would ever get from me. If it has not much content but they make it easy to get, I still only stay a month but would score higher and maybe return if they have added decent new content.
|
06-10-12 10:00am
|
Reply
31
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from Claypaws:
I read this because I wanted to see a recent review of a 50 rated site.
I agree with Monahan. You have put considerable effort into providing full detail of a poor site and have made it clear why it deserves the lowest possible rating. Well done and thank you.
As for why sites make it difficult to download, it beats me why they think that will make us stay longer just to get all their "wonderful" content.
|
06-10-12 09:13am
|
Reply
32
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from Monahan:
Rather complete review for a site that you scored so low. That means you are definitely on our side and want us to be fully aware of all the downsides before we lose money on a piece of crap site.
AFAIC, this review makes you a superior level reviewer. Thanks a million.
|
06-09-12 09:31pm
|
Reply
33
|
HQ Upskirt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from mbaya:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
They did a really good job of making them look unstaged. Who knows?
|
01-18-12 07:11pm
|
Reply
34
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from Capn:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Too right, my friend.
The fact that my 'Striptease' thread has run so long emphasizes the fact that there is still a market for this!
Cap'n. :0)
|
01-29-12 02:20pm
|
Reply
35
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from Capn:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Just stop looking before she gets naked then. :0D
I do appreciate that a lot of people do like that, but provided it is a slow strip, in the correct order for you, you will get there.
For me, full nudity is a prerequisite about 2/3rds of the way through.
As long as she is going to get there, I am going to enjoy the journey.
Actually the removal of shoes & hose can be a particularly erotic part of the striptease, if performed & captured well.
Cap'n. :0)
|
01-29-12 02:09pm
|
Reply
36
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Capn:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Yes,I love a striptease too,so that is fine by me, as long as I get progression to coy & more explicit full nudity.
To paraphrase what I said in another recent reply:
The journey is as important as the destination! ;0)
Cap'n. :0)
|
01-29-12 01:57pm
|
Reply
37
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Capn:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
I thought as much.
Sites like these eg. the 'Only' sites serve more to frustrate than satisfy IMO
Cap'n. :0/
|
01-29-12 01:48pm
|
Reply
38
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from Capn:
I think it is going to be the lack of consistent full nudity that will be a stumbling block for me!
Cap'n :0/
|
01-29-12 01:40pm
|
Reply
39
|
Just Nips
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Capn:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Overall, I would class them as average. Sets are usually well lit, and shot nicely. I think the problem was more in the equipment used. More recent stuff is shot with higher res equipment & noticeably better for it. Nothing here is ultra high resolution as yet.
Cap'n. :0)
|
01-18-12 11:32pm
|
Reply
40
|
Just Nips
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Capn:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Thank you.
It pans out close to RL really, although there is well above average amount of pregnant models.
Cap'n. :0)
|
01-18-12 04:56pm
|
Reply
41
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from Micha:
Some decent content
Don’t go there
Slow download speed
Don’t go there
Three to nine G daily download limit
Don’t go there
Hundreds of dead links
Don’t go there
Tech support is non existent or totally non responsive
Phone numbers don’t work
Don’t go there
Cancelation doesn't appear to work
Don’t go there
|
04-08-12 03:25pm
|
Reply
42
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from Micha:
Excellent revue Bubba
For the first 2 months, I experienced no download limit at all.
Around the middle of December, I began getting shut off daily, without an increase in my downloading habits. I read that the limit was 10G. That is not true for me. I began keeping all downloads in a single folder until I was cut off. I recorded the size of the file and then
filed its contents. I was able to DL 9G on two occasions. The rest of the cutoffs happened at between 3 and 7G. Dead links to the WMV files are plentiful. Several times I got 3 or 4 dead WMV links in a row and was then was shut out. The failed downloads were being counted in the DL limit. Daily, there are 2 to 4 download that appear to complete, but when I attempt to view them the file size says otherwise.
The failed downloads are between 1 and 100MB instead of the 300 to 700MB I was expecting. The folks in tech support are asleep at the wheel. In the first 2 months, I made between two and three hundred bug reports.
I never received a single response and no corrections were ever made. I stopped wasting my time. Each scene has a comments section. Whenever I commented about a dead link or a missing file, my comment was removed within hours. Someone there is on top of that job.
For me, downloading is the only viable use of Reality Kings. Streaming videos are impossible there. Buffering takes 5 to 10 times longer than the video it provides. Images sometimes take 5 to 10 seconds to load just the thumbnail of the image.
It’s easier to download the zip file and then delete what is not wanted.
(zip files do not appear to count against the download limit. Nor do clips) I would much prefer to download HD vids but that would set the limit to 2 or 3 videos a day. The only HD in the network is 1080p which is a huge memory hog, from 3 to 5G per video. 720p files at 1G per video would make a lot more sense to me. Most other sites offer both.
I've canceled my membership and will not return unless I read reports of an improvement.
Yes, RK has some very good content, but the navigation issues, the apathetic tech support, and the download limit queer the deal.
I recommend Reality Kings to no one.
|
03-25-12 04:24am
|
Reply
43
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#12
from rearadmiral:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
All good points again. I certainly fit the description of a power users for the first few days of a membership. I'll scour the site for material that interests me, and I'll download that. I won't download something simply because it happens to be on the site. There has to be a reasonable expectation that I'll like what I download. There are several dozen models that I like and if a site has stuff with them I'll download it without question. If I can sort by theme, anal sex, for example, then I'lld o that, but I won't download a scene merely because it has anal sex. If the anal sex scene features a MILF with Double-Ds, then I won't DL that because that type of model doesn't do it for me. So after a few days of downloading madly I'll settle down and be a lot more selective. That's when I start looking at models I don't know in hopes of finding someone who tickle my fancy.
I can see how a DL limit might limit piracy. If a pirate has to take days or months to rip a site, they'll probably avoiding it.
|
01-21-12 05:46am
|
Reply
44
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from rearadmiral:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
What you're saying doesn't sound like BS at all - it sounds perfectly sensible.
I guess I didn't ever think of most other active buyers as being that much different from me in that they'd find a site that they liked and then download a lot of the content because they actually like it. That describes my relationship with many Kink.com sites. I join frequently and download all the new material because that site offers what I like. The opposite might be a site that specializes in big breasts. If I were tempted to join a site it would likely just be for one or two scenes that I liked and then I'd leave. But I guess I just assumed that most users will actually download a lot. But if that isn't the case, I can understand why I'd be seen as a power user and a less desirable customer. I do realize from some comments made on this site that many of the members are much more selective than me.
It must be a bit of a Catch-22 for sites: they create a niche site and they do it well and then they'd have to hope that people who like that niche won't like everything on the site.
Thanks for the information. This is really interesting.
|
01-17-12 01:08pm
|
Reply
45
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from rearadmiral:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Thanks for the excellent information. Your technical knowledge surpasses mine exponentially. I realize that some people might find this level of information boring, but I'm not one of those.
I hadn't thought of the issue you note with streaming versus downloading, namely that a person streaming the video is unlikely to watch the whole thing, where the person downloading takes the whole file. To add to your argument, even though I download, it's rare for me to watch the scene from start to finish. But where downloading is superior is in being able to access the file at any time without having to have an internet connection or still be a member of the site.
I'm one of the members who keeps coming back to the buffet and who likely looks like a glutton, but I only join sites where I know I'm going to enjoy the material so it just makes sense that if I've put a lot of effort into finding a site I know I'll like that I download a lot. I may seem indiscriminate to the webmaster, but the webmaster can't know the effort I put in to finding that specific site.
I am glad to hear that if there are people like me who use a lot of bandwidth that there are more who don't and the site continues to make money. I'm a porn fan and an active porn buyer and I realize that unless sites make money they won't make more porn.
What do you think of tiered pricing? What if RK offered a $20 membership for streaming and up to 10GB a day and $30 for up to 50GB per day? Would that work? I'm certainly willing to pay for what I get.
|
01-13-12 10:01am
|
Reply
46
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from rearadmiral:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
I should have read this response before asking you questions based on your other response! I'd say you answered my questions here.
I agree that piracy is probably a big concern, but limits still bug me!
|
01-12-12 02:02pm
|
Reply
47
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from rearadmiral:
(BubbaGump's Reply)
Interesting thought, and it makes sense with so many people using streaming these days.
I have no technical knowledge at all, but how would streaming and downloading be different from a server's perspective? I didn't download any HD material because of the cap and I don't recall if HD was offered by streaming, but if I download a 2GB scene and you stream it, wouldn't that be the same to the server? But... now that I think of it, I could be comparing apples and oranges here too. I recall that a WMV HD scene is less compressed than an mp4, so streaming may even use a higher compression, thereby making your streaming less of a data hog than my downloading.
Still... it seems odd that I'd be cut off after accessing 10GB of data and other users wouldn't.
|
01-12-12 02:00pm
|
Reply
48
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from Cybertoad:
Nice well , done review. I found out things I did not know about the site. Great Job.
|
01-12-12 10:23am
|
Reply
49
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from rearadmiral:
Really interesting, informative and well written review! I like the level of detail and I expecially like your thorough descriptions and how your own tastes impact on how you view the site. That's an important element because it allows a reader to make decisions on how their own tastes will be served by the site. I also liked your letter grades for various aspects. That works well within the context of a full review like this.
I was a RK member here recently and HATED the daily download limit. That tainted everything else about the site for me, and I wasn’t that big a fan of the site to begin with. What I find interesting is that the limit doesn’t apply to streaming. Is it possible that you just didn’t hit the 10GB cut-off? I’ll admit though that the contract speaks to a cap on downloads, not data transfer. If they cap downloads by allow data to stream unfettered, this seems odd and may point to another purpose for the limit. Any thoughts?
|
01-12-12 04:09am
|
Reply
50
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
from Watson:
Good detail. I think that your review has covered most of the bases. I am glad that I read it, I was half considering subscribing, tossing up between spending my money with Score at Scoreland or XLGirls, I think I will take the heavier option.
|
02-13-12 11:00pm
|
