| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
151
|
AT Kingdom
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Monahan:
(badandy400's Reply)
The $29.95 problem arose after I checked out the tour extensively, and with interruptions, so it's very possible that I created a cookies conflict that caused the higher price to appear.
I just tried again and it looks like it was me and not the site because the price now shows consistently as $24.95.
So my apologies to any who were put off by my comment.
|
03-31-09 01:08pm
|
Reply
152
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from PinkPanther:
(badandy400's Reply)
Yeah - it's lame. Now they've got the FAQ up and it still doesn't talk about what the pricing is or what it would be for someone who upgrades in the middle of their monthly membership.
And the owner is dismayed that members are negative about it all - what was he expecting?
|
03-27-09 10:11pm
|
Reply
153
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from PinkPanther:
(badandy400's Reply)
The VideoBox owner put a blog up yesterday that they haven't figured out their pricing on the premium upgrades yet and will put up an FAQ once they figure it out.
I thought that was rather ass-backwards of them - put up the upgrade with no roll-out, then, after their members get thoroughly inflamed, start figuring out what their pricing will be.
|
03-26-09 09:41pm
|
Reply
154
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Comment
from exotics4me:
I ran into that same page last month and thought the prices had gone up, and just now checked and my prices were listed as the ones you are seeing too, but ran CCleaner and it went back to the regular prices of:
Premium - $14.95 reviewers special
10 months non-recurring $99.51
Basic - $9.95
The Vivid upgrade says $17.95 as does the Evil Angel upgrade
Not for sure why they are having so much problems with their cookies, but if you CClean, you will get the regular prices we are used to.
|
03-24-09 07:05am
|
Reply
155
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from Skip:
(badandy400's Reply)
Yeah they are down for maintenance right now.
|
03-23-09 10:34pm
|
Reply
156
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Comment
from Goldfish:
Hey badandy, I've always been skeptical of this site. I've never joined but from the free tour it just doesn't seem to match up with the rave reviews it receives.
If authentic sex is the draw I can understand that. Sometimes having average looking women genuinely enjoying the sex is better than a woman with goddess like beauty going through the motions like a robot.
|
03-18-09 07:51pm
|
Reply
157
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from Khan:
(badandy400's Reply)
I've always found that when someone understands the reasoning behind a rule, that it help them remember it. It usually also guides them should they ever have a situation where they wonder if a specific action would be breaking the rule or not. Given that, I certainly don't mind explaining the reasoning that went into this rule.
I didn't see your question as being argumentative, at all. Hope you didn't see my reply (in any way) as chastisement for asking.
But yeah, as you've demonstrated with your hamloaf, we tend to have different standards when we've received something for free.
haha ... and I'm getting too old to want a lot of drama so I can't see, "because I fucking said so" as an answer I'll be giving any time soon. :)
|
03-14-09 06:00am
|
Reply
158
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from Khan:
(badandy400's Reply)
Well, the short answer is, because it's against our Terms. You'll find it mentioned on both the Terms page : Review Rules, #4 under "Are there any other specific rules I need to know?" It's also is mentioned in the FAQ: #6 under General Questions Because it's against the terms each user here agreed to, I saw no need to explain further in my reply.
But, since you specifically asked ...
Since we do not list sites that are normally free of charge, writing reviews for those sites (like TGP's) is moot. So the only types of sites my remark would be addressing are sites we list ... pay sites.
There are a number of reasons we do not allow Reviews to be submitted based on free access. Among those are...
As you mentioned, they undermine the integrity of an unbiased review. Another issue is we needed to totally remove the temptation of users contacting webmasters asking for free access to write reviews. We had a problem with that early on and beefed up the wording in our Terms to address this problem. We also had webmasters offering free access to users (or to some users) in exchange for a review. Again, the fact that the reviewer got special treatment can call into question the ability to be totally unbiased.
We want users to be able to trust reviews they read here. We work very hard to see that the system isn't abused in any way. Doing reviews for sites you haven't visited or for sites you've gotten free access to is against the spirit of what our site represents.
Oh, and the problem with "special cases" is that once you start rationalizing exceptions, there's really no end to it. One can always come up with "good reasons" why they should get free access to pay sites "this one time". In the end, allowing it would not be worth letting the camel's nose in the tent ... if you know what I mean.
Hope that better answers your question.
|
03-13-09 07:31pm
|
Reply
159
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from Khan:
(badandy400's Reply)
badandy400 said: "Personally I beleve the best solution to all of this is for the site to offer a one or two day free trail with no credit card information to at least a few of us. This way someone trustworthy can provide a honest and useful review."
Actually, that wouldn't work since we don't allow Reviews based on free access. Sorry. :(
|
03-13-09 04:47am
|
Reply
160
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from turboshaft:
(badandy400's Reply)
Yeah, maybe a month or two of free membership so you'll never stop downloading, or maybe they just have a lot of content they have never released. :)
|
03-12-09 08:59pm
|
Reply
161
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from GCode:
(badandy400's Reply)
Yeah, the more I think about it I'd rather not even give my money for a review of this site. But who knows, maybe I'll just do it out of spite :) Seriously though, stinks that this site gets abused like this by places. I'm sure they have gotten plenty of hits out of curiousity...
-GCode
|
03-12-09 05:48pm
|
Reply
162
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from turboshaft:
(badandy400's Reply)
Justification for a high score, as well as lots of exclamation points, is what reviews should be about. We are all biased in some way or another, but I think a 100 or 99 can be validated, especially with the higher character counts that are allowed for reviews.
These reviews barely even read as advertisements, they just come across like every spam subject line we have had to read as we empty out the junk mail folder.
Is there a way to temporarily block reviews for this site until the flood of enthusiasm recedes some?
|
03-12-09 01:16pm
|
Reply
163
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from hogosos:
(badandy400's Reply)
Sounds to me as though you all are from a competitors site and are talking shit. Good...don't buy it! (And this is making the site look BACK?) (your quote)
I am having a hard time with people that complain about something they have never seen. So fine....stay away and save the good shit for us who know.
You stated "everything in this review I could have written, and I never subscribed to this site".......what the fuck does that mean?
If you never subscribed, then how the fuck do you know?
All I know is that Kim is the #1 when it cums to nasty!
THAT my friends is what porn is all about.
|
03-12-09 01:09pm
|
Reply
164
|
Only Cuties
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from PinkPanther:
(badandy400's Reply)
You work for them, badandy? Site seems to be working now.
|
03-11-09 09:53pm
|
Reply
165
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from pat362:
(badandy400's Reply)
Giving videobox a 100 score may have been a little high, but in your defense that site is amazing for people that want to download porn movies instead of buying them. It's important that we all police the reviews because we have a few newbies that might fall prey to the B.S reviews that have been appearing. I've always thought that the most important thing that PU does is prevent others from being taken in by fake reviews.
|
03-11-09 07:13pm
|
Reply
166
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Wittyguy:
(badandy400's Reply)
Yeah, this has come up in the forum before so I thought I'd toss it out as a poll question. I would buy stuff it was tasteful in regards to clothing. If there was something like a coffee mug or something similar that you don't tote around in public everyday I'd probably snap it right up.
|
03-11-09 12:27am
|
Reply
167
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from pat362:
(badandy400's Reply)
I'm glad you are doing this. You might want to change your name to Genghis. This way we could warn newbies that if they post fake reviews, then Gengis-Khan will stomp on their balls. Just a thought.
|
03-10-09 03:25pm
|
Reply
168
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Comment
from pat362:
This review and the one just before it smell so much like crap that I feel we should flush them before they stink up the place. It's one thing to love a site, but I can't help to wonder when 2 reviews come up a 100 score and little substance in them. I also found the attitude of dhilon to be mean spirited.
|
03-10-09 02:02pm
|
Reply
169
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from Tree Rodent:
(badandy400's Reply)
Ah, it looks like the review is gone, but looks like kinkykarl
is worthy of a "no" too."
|
03-10-09 06:26am
|
Reply
170
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Dillon:
(badandy400's Reply)
look at:
http://www.flickr.com/people/tv-kim/
Just look at the comments
You will need a Flickr account to view them tho
|
03-10-09 06:16am
|
Reply
171
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Tree Rodent:
(badandy400's Reply)
This is why I have awarded my first two negative trust votes to the people giving this site a ridiculusly high mark and a review containing no detail and no objectivity. I would have given a negative to the other guy, but it looks like Marshall Khan kicked his ass out of town.
|
03-10-09 05:54am
|
Reply
172
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Comment
from Dillon:
Well I was horrified to see the negative comments on Kims new website, so I posted my own comments to put things right.
I am NOT a fuckin fake. How dare you say that I am!!!!
If you look on Flickr at kims following you will see that I am NOT alone. www.flickr.com/people/tv-kim/
I have joined Kim's site and I am entitled to my opinion.
I have followed Kim for years and she is in this business to give value for money and quality photos.
You are not the only person with a view on this badandy.
I dare say that someone seen the negative unfounded comments and came to Kims rescue.
The original comments made about her website are a bit like someone who goes to see a Film at the cinema, doersnt like it and wants his money back. Pathetic
Kims site makes it completely clear what the content is. He should have read that before joining.
|
03-10-09 05:49am
|
Reply
173
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Dillon:
(badandy400's Reply)
Why do you say that Andy?
Dont I have a right to say what I like?
Dill
|
03-10-09 02:10am
|
Reply
174
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from kinkykarl:
(badandy400's Reply)
Kims anal heaven is in my opinion a unique porn site for those that like not only beautiful trannies but large insertions. She is no doubt pretty and mistesrious and hot as steam when she fucks those humongous dildoes so easily. Her rose bud is adorable without a doubt. I give it a 100
KinkyKarl
|
03-09-09 11:46pm
|
Reply
175
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from turboshaft:
(badandy400's Reply)
There was a third one, by a user called Paulo, who gave it a 99, but now it's gone. It really wasn't much different from this.
|
03-09-09 08:33pm
|
