| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Exposed Emo Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from bjajlt362:
Wow, what a scam, I'm gonna go spend my dollar on a twix or something instead. Thanks for the heads up!
|
08-19-10 11:41pm
|
Reply
2
|
WTF Hot Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from BadMrFrosty:
I cant argue with you about the pricing but to be fair they are pretty clear about what you get, the homepage contains this statement:
"While you may find some nudity here, you will never find any pornography or adult images. Sexy and skin, together or apart, does not equate to porn here."
|
04-06-10 03:45am
|
Reply
3
|
Rare Asians
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from alexmedia:
Thank you for review. I've never seen this site.
|
11-09-09 08:46pm
|
Reply
4
|
Rare Asians
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from lk2fireone:
The site has a free trial 10-day membership with full access. Maybe you should have tried that first. It really can pay to read the TBP review for special offers, etc.
Sorry you wasted your money on a lousy site. But thanks for the heads up.
|
11-02-09 01:59am
|
Reply
5
|
I Shot Myself
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from FeckAdmin:
(Xororos's Reply)
The "Shoot Yourself" link is where users submit - we ask for samples first to weed out the dross, guys pimping out their girlfriends or sending pics downloaded form other sites. If you follow the link and read the procedure you'll see it clearly isn't an invitation to 'model for us'. All the folios are shot by the girls themselves, though obviously we aren't there to see if any might be getting a little help om their friend. We presume it happens occasionally.
|
08-11-09 01:04am
|
Reply
6
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from asmith12:
(Xororos's Reply)
> Until M&B, I had never joined a site with a pre-checked trial or
> anything like it. I'm aware that stuff like that is out there, but
> I've never joined a site like that.
Wow, you've got REALLY lucky. I would say that from my (pretty extensive) experience at least 1/3rd of sites these days are trying to swindle users using PRE-CHECKED trials (especially typical for the sites which credit card transactions are handled by Epoch).
|
06-02-09 11:29pm
|
Reply
7
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from asmith12:
(Xororos's Reply)
> It's merely a ploy to hook you. It's a classic bait and switch, which results in them being *that* much more likely to get you to sign on for the full subscription.
For me it would work as an exact opposite (unlike classic "bait and switch", these guys don't have good excuse of "being out of stock" for advertised item, which weakens their position greatly). On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'm a typical user in this regard.
> We're not outside of the adult industry.
Well, if the court would ever consider such a case of deceptive practices in adult industry, it will VERY LIKELY consider common terminology and practices not only within this industry, but on much broader scale. And it is the court which ultimately decides what is fraud and what's not, isn't it?
> The bottom line for me is, I've done a lot of trials and the ones
> that are limited tell me so, so I expect that. You can say it's
> redundant, but we clearly have different expectations for trials. I > consider a trial to be limited to length of subscription only.
Well, I understand your point, but on the other hand I see LOTS of MUCH MORE deceptive practices (like PRE-CHECKED "trials" with outrageous renewal rates when subscribing) in this industry, so compared to those "pre-checked" guys unannounced trial limitations don't look that bad to me.
|
06-02-09 05:38am
|
Reply
8
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from asmith12:
(Xororos's Reply)
> the company has a duty to tell you what to expect.
Right. But as I've said, the question is that if the very word "trial" implies some restrictions or not. And (playing devil's advocate) IMHO it can be easily argued that it does imply at least some restrictions (number of limited trials even in adult industry is not that small, you can see it on TBP, and if we'll go outside the adult industry, trials will become obviously limited). And if it is implied, what is the need to tell it once again?
> wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
Come on, $2 or so they're getting is not really a financial gain (they're paying almost all of it or even more for the transaction itself). The very idea of trial is to get you to stay more, and that's one of the reasons I think that limited trials (except for DL limits during trials) are more much more "stupidity" than "fraud".
|
06-01-09 10:01pm
|
Reply
9
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Comment
from Denner:
Mac and Bumble is one of my favorite "hate-sites". It's generally a fake concerning previews and what seems to be updates - old, old stuff (like videos of for exampel Lonnie Adams shown as new stuff) - man, it's OLD, very old.
Take a look at earlier comments AND PU-reviews.
One thing I really do NOT understand is how our friends at TBP can still give this site 90.8 score...
BTW: Took a look at the join-page: don't see no trail - just a $19.95 for a month and a special $13.33/month for 3 months...
But anyway - won't go near this site again.
|
06-01-09 07:27am
|
Reply
10
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Comment
from asmith12:
> There is a word for this: Fraud.
While in general I like to tell that some site is swindling it's customers ;-), I don't think I would name it "fraud" in this case (it's stupid on their part, but that's another story). And that's because at least for me, "trial" means something to try :-); kind of test drive without any guarantees that it will be the full thing. For example, when I'm taking a car for a test drive, I won't complain if salesguy will be in the car and I won't be allowed to drink my coffee and spill it all over the place :-).
Overall, it's all about expectations, but IMHO trials are generally not expected to be full; if somebody gives me full trial - good, if not - tough luck, but I don't have much to complain about.
So IMHO "Don't even bother with trial" is a useful warning, thanks, but naming it "fraud" is IMHO a bit too much.
|
06-01-09 05:51am
|
Reply
11
|
I Shot Myself
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from uscue:
You are right, nothing about this site screams authentic which after touring the site I'm not interested. But, I can also interpret it "I Shot Myself" as being a site where people send in their own professional (nude) model photos instead of the company just going out and shooting themselves.
Is there anywhere in the members area where they ask you to send in material? If so, they would at least make me believe the premise a little more.
|
05-28-09 07:24am
|
Reply
12
|
Rookie Babe
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Comment from Xororos:
*Update*
The admin has posted a few replies on the Rookie Babe forum. The issue where you cannot navigate the site while downloading (or have parallel downloads) isn't due to heavy traffic - it's an ERROR IN THE SITE!!! Apparently, the issue has been forwarded to the web programmer. Talk about amateur hour.
Also, I got confirmation that the old content will indeed show up at the rate of one set per day as part of the highly touted "daily update" schedule. Those of us who waited around for the new site to launch were rewarded with the prospect of getting the same old stuff all over again. Yes, it's higher resolution, but it's old content!
In light of these new development, I can definitely offer this advice: stay away until Rookie Babe gets its act together. For one thing, Zip files don't save you time if you can't do anything else while they're downloading (one at a time). Plus, there are exactly 31 photo sets (as of 4.23.09). That's hardly worth the increased subscription price (now $29.99 instead of $24.99). What a shame!
Oh, and CCBill is not yet available to new subscribers. Existing subscriptions remain active under CCBill, but new subscribers have to use an alternative billing source.
|
04-23-09 02:28pm
|
Reply
13
|
Rookie Babe
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Comment
from Drooler:
Thanks for this heads up. I'd joined the site once three and a half years ago, back when their "XXL" size was a measly 900px!
Glad that someone has been paying attention. I'll be keeping an eye on things. I really did like some of the content, but didn't like the pic sizes and the "no zips."
|
04-23-09 03:35am
|
Reply
14
|
Alison Angel
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from somedays:
(Xororos's Reply)
Here is a link to her video announcing retirement. It is from a porn site but is safe for work. http://www.ftvgirls.com/alisonretire.wmv
|
04-20-09 02:07pm
|
Reply
15
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from RagingBuddhist:
(Xororos's Reply)
That's one of the best parts of this site - we can discuss just about anything we want - and I love it too
And I have to laugh about the name thing - I get called Ragging on every forum I'm on. I wasn't offended - it's just funny to me - no need to apologize. : - )
|
04-07-09 04:05pm
|
Reply
16
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Monahan:
(Xororos's Reply)
RagingBuddhist already said a few things I was going to say so let me just say that I am with you on the filet mignon/pizza analogy. I was a member of MetArt for several months and left it because, although there was plenty of material, it was of modest quality and was totally repetitive.
I hope that as time passes the site starts loading enough material to justify it's $18 per month price.
I'm thinking of joining FigureBaby to see how good a site's quality can be and to give me a better basis for evaluating it in comparison with other sites.
|
04-07-09 12:26pm
|
Reply
17
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from RagingBuddhist:
(Xororos's Reply)
I have to disagree with some of your assessment of the site.
For one, you called it "small and growing" - and that, I would think, is a definition of the word embryonic. Neither Monahan nor I said the site was ridiculously small and, considering the update schedule so far, I don't think anyone expects an explosion of material. But, even if it is filet mignon, for a site that's been up for somewhere in the neighborhood of two years, there sure isn't much to look at yet. Maybe they're hoping the lower than average price will keep the site attractive while the content grows. Only the operators of the site would know that. I also see they have "Comments Wanted" somewhat prominently displayed on the member's homepage - something else that makes me think the site knows it's just starting out and isn't sure where they're going to take things.
I didn't mention it in my review, but I did notice there's a sort by alphabetical, oldest to newest and newest to oldest function on the models page. With only 22 models up so far, that left me with the impression that they expect the site to grow into something much larger, something along the lines of a Femjoy or a MetArt, where sorting hundreds of sets to find what you're looking for would be warranted.
But I do agree with you in that this is really good site with a really good philosophy - and I definitely look forward to coming back to it one day!
On a small personal note - please note that Ragging was what my ex always did - one of the reasons she's an ex. Me? I'm always fighting the mainstream - Raging as I go... : - )
|
04-07-09 09:55am
|
Reply
18
|
Change Room Hunters
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from littlejoe:
check out voyeur russian & hidden zone if you want real vids
|
04-06-09 07:34pm
|
Reply
19
|
Naked News
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from Horndog:
I'm curious about the video quality that I see in the free daily preview. Are those videos standard membership quality or gold membership quality?
|
04-05-09 09:01pm
|
Reply
20
|
The Good Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from roseman:
Thanks for the info.
|
04-04-09 02:24am
|
Reply
21
|
Aria Giovanni
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from Goldfish:
I usually prefer hardcore but Aria is one model that's exceptional all on her own.
|
04-01-09 08:14pm
|
Reply
22
|
Aria Giovanni
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from mbaya:
Since the first time I saw her photos, I have thought she is one hot model. However, I have seen only one video with her in it and it was extremely poor quality. How many and what quality are the videos? Is everything only really softcore or does she go any further? I must also add, the review is nicely written and shows good effort.
|
04-01-09 08:30am
|
Reply
23
|
Change Room Hunters
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from badandy400:
I was a member here a while back so I am wondering what the newer videos look like. What is there resolution and bit rate?
Yet another one of those site, kinda like American Pie: Band Camp that makes a guy wonder what "really" goes on in the girls shower room.... :)
|
03-31-09 12:49pm
|
Reply
24
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Review
from badandy400:
Looks like a site worth checking out sometime.
|
03-23-09 10:34pm
|
Reply
25
|
Figure Baby
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from RagingBuddhist:
(Xororos's Reply)
Thanks for the reply. I am definitely looking forward to your review!
|
03-22-09 11:02pm
|
