Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
The Sandfly
(0)
|
Reply of
TheMoreYouKnow's Reply
I am not sure whether to attempt dialogue with you or slap you down as another bitter troll. You seem too educated to troll, but you never know.
I explained previously our video serving ratios. I explained previously our exclusivity of many of our videos.
I explained WE have been here for 3 years; many of OUR exclusive vids pop up on other sites. This is the adult internet, my friend - because you see similar videos on different sites does not mean anyone is plagarising or copying. Certainly not framing - it is easily spotted.
More like the originators of the vids are trying to make a few bucks by hocking them around; we find it difficult to tie producers down to just us - the Sandfly and a couple of others being very much the exception nowadays. But we manage to, and our users very much appreciate the originality of that facet of our content. You maybe do not understand how rare a thing that is. Deal with it
I do not need spellchecker to answer trolls, however you may use it to understand the term 'pedant' - a 1.5 second comical caption in a 15 minute video placed by the producer of the video does not constitute in any way the validity of your prior claims.
Our images - numbering in millions - range from very hi-res to low-res dependent on age, camera-type, etc, etc. We don't publish shots that have been elsewhere if we can avoid it - staff have to sift through thousands and reject a fair percentage. Errors are down to the human eye, nothing sisnister.
Complaining to us about the quality of pics someone sends in is like complaining the Mona Lisa is too small for your liking - take it up with the artist, not the museum. Perhaps you'd like to advise some gents to find better-quality wives/gfs while you're at it? Je-sus.
Finally, I hope your enormous self-conceit may allow you to appreciate business accumen. I will not call you out as another shallow fool because I think you do have some comprehension of the adult internet business, however you do need to put the brakes on and think before you condemn:
We have reasons for serving out videos at the resolutions we do - which are as standard as any major sites, and in the case of exclusive content (720x576), above most - and for letting our users chose their own method of downloading.
These reasons are purely business - doing so means we save greatly on bandwidth costs; THE crippling expense of any web business involved in vid streaming/download.
Efficiency of bandwidth costs we can PASS ON the saving to our users through long-term, low-cost memberships.
THAT is why we do not charge rip-off $30 per-month prices. THAT is why we have a massive archive and happy, recurring customer base.
Perhaps you may have given that some deeper thought before attempting to bury us. Our business model stands strong against anything else on the web and is about to widen with the advent of theSandfly 2.0 this fall when new interfaces and blanket mobile compatibility are introduced.
|
05-06-14 10:25am
|
Reply
2
|
The Sandfly
(0)
|
Reply of
TheMoreYouKnow's Review
Why go to all the bother of signing up here just to post a sabotage review? If you're not going to retract it...
Oh well, if you're prepared to go to all the trouble of super-trolling us (we have your emails demanding 'navigation buttons between pics' wtf?) then I'll set about bursting your bubble of hate. Addressing your cons, paragraph by paragraph:
Wrong on first count. It only takes the casual observer a few seconds to relaise WE are the primary hub for exclusive ORIGINAL content regards the beach vids you refer to - we PAY the voyeurs to supply us - Sandfly, Itsmee, etc, etc and have done for 3 YEARS.
Voyeurs sell their material to us. If they hock it around elsewhere, that's up to them to make a living. WE carry a huge variety from a number of different guys. WE present stuff that no-one else on the web has.
That content is served out at 720x576 pix ration - hardly small and double the size of mainstream dinosaur sites.
Other vid content onsite is served out at 480x384 and 640x480 respectively. Again, average size and above. 'awfully tiny' ??? Getthefuckoutofhere.
Pics - from hi-res current submitted amateur stuff to Retro section lo-res with some b&w. Yes - it may surprise you to know they didn't have hi-res cameras in the 1950s and earlier. We don't photoshop anything to upscale or prettify - we are an AMATUER site, which means honest original shots, presented warts and all (although we'd rather not see warts ;))
'Also original content videos is peppered with large, cheesy unnecessary captions and comments,' - did you get tired of trolling here?
Just a plain lie. You blew your cover there.
No cheesy captions on our content - occasional titles only then on with the show.
You also threw in a reply to another review about downloading videos - including a plug for some pro program (you on commission?) Again, bullshit. Many of our members use torch browser (as an example of a number of free programs) to download vid content. Nobody needs to pay for pro.
By serving out video at quality sizes and letting members make their own choices about downloading software, we save on bandwidth costs - this saving is then passed to our customers in the form of low-cost long-term memberships.
Thankfully, many people seem to realise this and are happy to accept the compromise for the sake of their wallets.
Our site is growing, our huge amateur archive growing, our membership growing. theSandfly 2.0 is coming later this year which will ensure functionality across ALL platforms from desktop to mobile.
People like what we give them; honest amateur porn, in spades, with some exclusive greatness and no bull.
|
04-28-14 06:00pm
|
Reply
3
|
The Sandfly
(0)
|
Reply of
BabyGetReal's Review
Tut-tut.
A bit harsh there and light on the info.
May I address some of the cons which are inaccurate:
Videos - the amatuer video section has a range of AMATUER clips from phone clips to home-shot HD. Variety of scenario varies dependent obviously on the situation filmed.
The clip sare served out in flash player at 480x384 pixels, the same, if not greater as in major sites like voyeurweb and voyeurcloud.
The clips CAN be adjusted in size - theSandfly uses a better system than straight large screen - instead using the ctrl keyboard button in conjunction with the + or - buttons clips can be scaled to the users preference.
Memebers CAN download the videos, simply using any of the free vidoe downloader programs out there - the site uses the same progressiv edownload system as youtube.
the Sandfly and Karennudist EXCLUSIVE beach voyeur material IS mostly completely nude and filmed at pretty close rang efor the most part. I don't know where you get this 'long-range telephoto' view from - perhaps only on some of the early sandfly clips from a decade ago. The new collections were shot in HD and served out at 720x576 pixels.
There are a HUGE variety of picture sections to comliment the videos. Updating every week.
I believe your review was too shallow - you didn't check out the site stringently enough as it presents excellent value and amateur variety.
You're around 25 points short at least when you compare it to some of the rip-off sites out there.
|
10-05-12 07:22am
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
