Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
gareth's Review
Hi Gareth,
Sorry to hear you received no response - that's one of the things we're very careful on, replying to every message we receive. Perhaps you could email it to me personally on garion.hall@abbywinters.com ?
We think the quality of models is improving, but as you say, that may be a taste-based thing.
|
08-23-10 05:03am
|
Reply
27
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
EmptySky's Review
thanks for the feedback. We're working on a few things to mix some stuff up a bit, so hopefully, your third time thru, you'll see some changes.
|
05-09-10 10:44pm
|
Reply
28
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
heitorcontrol's Comment
Garion Hall here, CEO of abbywinters.com. We are indeed looking at discontinuing MPG videos, but at this stage, we're still gathering feedback from our members. MPG is a particularly bad format in many ways, and only has one minor redeeming feature, AND causes us some technical headaches on our back end. If MPG is hugely popular, we'll deal with the problem, but if it turns out few people use MPG, it's a candidate for discontinuing.
We regularly look at all the formats we offer, consider what other sites are doing, what the adult industry trends are, what the internet trends are, what our customers tell us they want, and what our business capacities are.
WMV is technically "next on our list" (as in, it's the next-oldest, and second-worst format we offer). We use WMV9 at the moment, which is not an especially good codec, but is quite popular. It's unlikely we'd stop WMV9 any time in the next 12 months, but it is safe to say, WMV9 is not going to be around forever. WMV10 has some significant improvements, for example, and HTML5 is also becoming an increasingly strong candidate (and necessary if we want to have our customers view our site on Apple devices, whihc we do).
So, no one is "losing" anything - no need to panic! If you're an AW members, please participate on our furums, so you can be sure your opinion is heard.
|
05-09-10 10:42pm
|
Reply
29
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
williamj's Comment
Hi Williamj,
The balance of explicitness in our GG shoots is unlikely to change from what you have already seen, so we may not be the site for you.
Thanks for the feedback, tho, it helps us keep focus!
|
11-24-09 01:16pm
|
Reply
30
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
redcreative's Review
Hi RedCreative,
thanks for the review. I just wanted to let you know, regarding the dressing more sexy, we'll have something for you soon - around Feb next year, I expect.
|
11-24-09 01:14pm
|
Reply
31
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Denner,
We're due for a re-review around the fitst of Jan 2010. We're just about to release an entire new front (and back) end, which will HUGELY improve the site for users (the content stays the same, for better or worse!), so we're going to ask the folks at TBP to delay our review by a week or two, so their rteview will include our new design.
|
11-19-09 03:40am
|
Reply
32
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Comment
Hi RB,
As always, thanks for your feedback. It's cutting, clear and honest, which is always good... but it's not entirely fair.
We went through a phase in the middle of this year where our shooters neglected to get some of the most obvious best stuff - lotsa nudity - in favour of other stuff. There is a lag from when we shoot stuff, to when it appears on the site (So, the shoots that are appearing now, were shot in that "dark" period).
We have since fixed that problem, and luckily we're now nearing the end. All the shoots we have shot since are much better, and are already appearing on the site. Soon, we'll be entirely rid of the shoots that lack nudity (of course, then we'll get the equally-agressive feedback that the shoots have too much nudity, an can-we-tone-it-down-a-little-please).
Of course, most of your quotes there select out particular models who do not have much nudity (or more), but totally ignores the other models who have plenty. Our recent "dark period" definitely lowered our average some, but it's not like every single shoot has NO nudity!
Another thing to keep in mind is that not all models are up for the more revealing poses. We respect their choice in this. We try to maintain a mix of explicitness in the updates where ever possible, and historically have a very even balance.
As for model-attractiveness, that's always a a tricky one. We log how much positive and negative feedback we get on models we add to the site, to make sure we're not totally insane. We get consistant results (for example, Mary gets a +1 and a -1). The average is pretty much 0 or higher over any period of time (ie, models get as many positive comments as they do negative. Sometimes a model will get a more positive than negative, other times, a model will get more negative than positive, but mostly, it's 1-for-1, or more positive).
One of the things we do - what our whole site is based on - is to shoot models who are a little left-of-the-middle. We freely admit that not every model will be your personal cup of tea, but we also have a heck of a lot of models - 1000 or so, and at least two newbies each week.
Hope this clears some up, and please always keep the feedback coming - it never falls on deaf ears, and we respond to every email we receive.
|
11-19-09 03:38am
|
Reply
33
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
The OP says: "They will post a scene then post an update to the scene a few days later and you can end up downloading the videos more than once"
In fact, we post a scene for stills, then we post the videos of the same scene one to five days later. I'm not sure why you'd download the scene more than once, unless you're not really looking at the material you're downloading, which begs the question... why are you downloading it?!
|
03-19-08 11:04pm
|
Reply
34
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Comment
As suggested, please contact us so we can help you resolve this.
|
01-01-08 01:34pm
|
Reply
35
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
s1vus1's Review
Hi! Thanks for the kind words! I have a few followup things:
(1) please let us know how to improve the navigation - you seem to have some ideas - we'd love to hear them!
(2) number of concurrent downloads is limited by your web browser, not by us. We recommend using a download manager.
(3) If you don't like GB scenes, then surely YOU cannot mark us down for them?! Further, boy girl is just not something we do, we don't claim to, it's not a market niche we try to do. It's like marking down a site that specialises in Asian models, for not have enough black models - absurd!
(4) we have 106 hardcore lesibian scenes on the site, and add a new one each week.
|
12-18-07 09:09pm
|
Reply
36
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
uscue's Comment
hi uscue!
The "regular" membership gets you access to all our solo shoots - around 800 in the back catalogue, and three new ones each week (most shoots have stills and video components). It DOES NOT give you access to the girl-girl or our special intimate masturbation video project, but of "gold" section does.
We do not have paid trial, but if you like the look of our stuff from the tour, you will def like what's inside!
|
12-11-07 08:19pm
|
Reply
37
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Reply
I have no idea how reliable those stats are, nor what market segment they apply to. We know that 100% of our subscribers have JS enabled.
People without JS enabled are not actually able to join the site - we test before people join, so they know before they pay that JS is required. If a user turns off JS after subscribing, we show a message saying that JS is required. More to the point there's no reason NOT to enable JS (unless you're using a text-only browser, where poorly programmed JS can mess with stuff, but in which case you have no need of my site!)
If you choose not to join our site because JS is required, that's fine. We feel JS is necessary to run a successful site, but certainly not everyone agrees with us. It seems that you don't - which is fine. We seem to have plenty of people who don't care about JS, and just want to enjoy our site, so we'll spend our time ensuring they have the best experience possible!
I am not sure of the details of your case (assuming there is one). If you feel it's unresolved, please email me on abby@abbywinters.com so we can sort it out.
|
11-13-07 06:08pm
|
Reply
38
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Reply
Different sites combat the problem in different ways, and not all sites are subject to the same level of abuse as we are (more popular sites are).
You have not actually said (I think?) what the specific nature of your problem is? Our customer support staff have no reason to lie - if you're the only customer experiencing the problem, then that would be the case.
|
11-13-07 03:30pm
|
Reply
39
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Reply
Hi asmith12.
I am not sure if you're complaining about our site, or adult sites in general, or just websites in general?
I can only speak for my site. We need to keep it secure. If we don't hackers get in and break it, which means the whole site goes down for hours and NO ONE can get on.
So rather than let that happen (which pisses of tens of thousands of people), we instead put a small amount of the onus on lots of people - spreading the load. That means that sometimes, it's annoying for some people, but it's pretty rare.
Not sure if you're aware, we have 24/7 customer support, and every issue is responded to by a real person in a matter of minutes. Most tickets are resolved in the first communication.
So sure, it's annoying, but that's life in the big bad world...
|
11-13-07 02:59pm
|
Reply
40
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Comment
We've required JS be enabled for the last 18 months, and this is the first time we have heard of it being an issue for ANYONE.
JS is a fact of life on the internet, and there is no conceivable reason for it to be disabled on users browser (some misinformed people believe it's "safer" to have it disabled, but this has been proven many times over to be irrelevant. If you want to be THAT safe, don't use the Internet!).
|
09-20-07 07:53pm
|
Reply
41
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
Thrillhouse85's Review
Thrillhouse85, Thanks for the kind words! However, I must say that our servers are located in Dallas, Texas, and we're about to add a full mirror in the Netherlands.
The site is not slow for all North American users (as several people here have mentioned, and as our tens of thousands of North American customers experience daily), just the one who wrote this review.
Thrillhouse85, please email me on abby@abbywinters.com , so we can offer some advice about your speed issue (or at the least, explain why it might be happening).
|
07-21-07 08:32pm
|
Reply
42
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
dreading it why?
|
07-05-07 09:11pm
|
Reply
43
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Review
From our FAQ: Hey, how come a bunch of pics in each model's gallery look the same? You're ripping me off!
Actually, we're not ripping you off. This is a style of shooting that many of our customers enjoy, and does not appear to be done any place else we have seen.
What happens is this: We sometimes lock off the (stills) camera on a tripod, compose the shot carefully, and get the model to perform an action - say inserting and removing a dildo. Then, we take a pic at between three and eight frames every second, recording the action as she performs it.
If you download these images (as a zip is the easiest way), and use an image viewing program that allows you to press a single key to page through the images (you might want to choose to view our images full screen, "fit to screen"), you get an extremely high-quality "movie".
This allows you - in this example - to see what happens to each individual pubic hair, fold of skin, tiny muscle, and dollop of girlcum in the best possible quality and largest amount of detail.
Perhaps this is all a bit too explicit or "clinical" for you? Sure, we understand not everyone wants to see this kinda stuff, so we do the same thing for other actions as well, like a model taking her top off (seeing her tummy muscles and skin and breasts all move about is fascinating, we think!), or exercising, or rubbing lotion all over herself, or two models kissing passionately.
Some people think this is a waste of... something. They never can seem to tell us what, but we always say two things to them:
First, if you prefer, you can treat these sequences as a free bonus that you choose not to enjoy. They are not something we charge you extra for, we just add them into the set because we think they look cool, and we get a lot of positive feedback from customers.
Second, we provide many different options to download files from our site - entire set zips, entire page zips, custom zips you make yourself, or just single files you can choose to save on their own. If you want to skip these sequences, go right ahead. We ensure the sets look fine without them.
|
07-04-07 04:49pm
|
Reply
44
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Review
Clearly, my site is not for you. Hairy models is a forte of ours - we'd never encourage them to trim. There are plenty of places out there that DO have trimmed models - we're not competing with them.
|
07-04-07 04:49pm
|
Reply
45
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
Online Skeptic 's Comment
Hey, it'd be good to know specifically what it is you don't like about the site. You don't mention anything except for how much you dislike it - that's not very helpful?
|
06-23-07 03:50pm
|
Reply
46
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
joe3412's Review
Heyy Joe, just wanted to mention that in fact, none of our models have makeup on.
|
06-20-07 04:26pm
|
Reply
47
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
SnowDude's Comment
Snowdude, we may be adding more girl-boy shoots in the future, but at a very low rate - no more than one a year.
They are not what this site is about. Sorry.
|
01-31-07 02:05pm
|
Reply
48
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Review
uh, we do have a standard price option that includes all. $30 for one month, or $45 for three months!
|
01-26-07 09:52pm
|
Reply
49
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
powerman's Review
we do split up our videos, but not as much as exemplar67 implies. Segments are beteen 8 and 20 minutes, file sizes between 60 and 300 Mb.
|
01-22-07 07:39pm
|
Reply
50
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
BDickuss's Comment
BDickuss posted above that we divide our videos into shorter segments. We do do this (between 7 and 15 mins for new videos, older ones are between 3 and 5 mins, as less people had broadband in those days).
We do get complaints about this, but we get just as many complaints that the segments we break videos down into are too BIG, and we should break them up more! It's a tough problem, and there's no easy solution.
We already have two versions of every video (WMV and MPG), making even more is a LOT of work, and we prefer to spend our energy on making new content, rather than providing our existing content in dozens of different formats and lengths.
To fix these problems (and address some other ones), we're going to be adding a streaming format to our site (possibly flash video), which will allow users to jump around a video stream, or play the entire thing, with actual streaming. This will also satisfy the people deamnding genuine streaming videos (currently our videos are of so high quality, that they often cannot be "streamed" (really, watched while they are being downloaded)).
We agree that the current system is not perfect. If someone has a better solution, we're all ears!
|
01-16-07 09:14am
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
