| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
kkman112 (0)
|
I say no because I have seen some sites that have very poor content and cost an outrageous price. I think price should be less of a consideration the better the content, but still be part of the review.
|
12-29-07 05:47am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I found the rationale for this at www.thebestporn.com/faqs.html#B11. The point made is that the would-be subscriber, not the TBP reviewers, makes the decision as to whether the site is worth the subscription price insofar as it affects scoring. TBP makes this clear in its reviews, too.
It is true anyway that consumers judge value for money, and the reviewers can still make statements to the same effect.
Besides, scores vary enough anyway between different reviewers at PU and TBP that value for money is often in the eye of the beholder.
Finally, I think it's best to see the scores as general indicators that are also of greater or lesser value in the eye of beholder. I've seen plenty of both low and high scores that struck me as excessive, but that's just to be expected.
Bottom line: The amount of detailed, accurate information about a site is far more important than the score anyway, so factoring price into the score, or not, isn't all that important. I said, "Yes," but I could have easily enough said, "No."
|
12-29-07 05:48am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
Considering that such a large % of porn afficianados consider price as a significant factor in whether to join a site, I vote "No".
Price matters. A forum member made a point to me about Babes.TV that he thought $20/month was too high for a site that wasn't part of a network.
Since users are considering price/value in their estimation of a site's overall worth, I think that it would be better if TBP did as well.
Should a site that costs $34.95/month be scored identically as it would if it cost $20/month? I don't think so. The relatively high cost is a "Con" in my book and would definitely lower a score that I gave that site.
|
12-29-07 08:01am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
apoctom (0)
|
I agree with PinkPanther: price is a definite consideration for me and for many porn surfers. Scores should reflect a difference for sites that offer discounts, too, since that benefits everyone who wants to join the site.
I think an alternative may be to use a value scale ($/movie or $/pic set) that would allow users to gauge a site's amount of content for a given price. In my mind, this wraps up the main points of any review: quality of the content vs. quantity vs. price.
|
12-29-07 08:28am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
pat362 (0)
|
I agree with what Drooler said. I'll only add that I use the cost of joining a site in my score, only if I find the content does not warrant the price being charged. Otherwise I will mention it, but only has general information.
|
12-29-07 09:08am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Rick (Suspended)
|
This poll caught my eye. :)
I gotta agree with anyone who votes YES or NO on this one. There's a few reasons why we took price/value out of the TBP scoring... here's a basic rundown:
1. Price was influencing the scores "too" much previously. Mediocre sites were ranking way high simply because they were priced way low ($10-15/mo). TONS of complaints over this.
2. Prices were changing and discounts were being added, causing too many re-reviews just based on price. It became a chasing game trying to keep our scores somewhat updated to the current price of each site. Logistical nightmare.
3. Discounts made the reviews appear biased. Scores naturally increased when webmasters offerred our users better prices. However, bad PR came with that from the industry feeling that we were favoring such companies when it affected the score.
4. Trials were impossible to judge. A trial can be a big pricing factor if it offers full access. However, we didn't enough info to determine (for every site) if the trial offerred full access or not, so it was difficult for us to judge on how much value a site with trial offerred.
In the end, there were too many factors against it. The bottom line too, we felt price was something each user could judge for themself.
The final score now reflects how we rank each site based on it's product. Some will like it better, some will prefer the former.
But now it helps you understand the decision behind removing it. :)
|
12-29-07 09:33am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
jd1961 (0)
|
I think it might be a good idea to have a separate price rating. For instance, a recent site entry looked very nice, but for $29.95 offered a small handfull of videos. The content grade would be high, but the price grade very low.
|
12-29-07 09:41am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Monahan (0)
|
I voted yes.
A site should be judged solely on its merits and not its price. The reader of a review can quickly decide if a price is too high based on his own cost considerations.
If a $59.95 per month site is totally spectacular and is loaded with a bunch of gangbuster features, why should that site not get a score near 100 despite the fact that it is expensive?
Let me make that call. I just want to know what's good and what's not so good. That's all.
|
12-29-07 10:19am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
mr smut (0)
|
REPLY TO #8 - Monahan :
That's exactly why I voted yes and besides we are all old enough to read and understand a review written on TBP or PU.
|
12-29-07 12:43pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Rick :
Wow, what a can of worms! I definitely understand better now. Thanks for the inside scoop.
I'll stop flip-flopping and change Yes or No to just "Yes."
Or should it be "No" in front of the PU crowd and "Yes" at TBP ;-)
|
12-29-07 12:48pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
Now this is funny to me... Had I seen the explanation Rick gave here, I probably never would've suggested this poll. I was always of the opinion that price is one of the biggest factors in determining a site's rating. I guess I trusted that the reviewers were every bit as money-conscious as I am (or, at least looking out for Joe Pornsurfer's wallet) and would, naturally, take cost into consideration. But, again, after seeing Ricks explanation, I'm voting Yes. Now I understand why they took out the cost factor.
**************
But I'm still pissed at Yoko!
|
12-29-07 02:38pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
djwolf (0)
|
I'd say no. I know that the price has no bearing on the actual content, however some sites charge silly prices for what they offer. Also, equally some sites offer very good exclusive content for cheap prices. I do think it should be included in the review. I always look at the price of membership before I join a site.
|
12-29-07 03:01pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Rick :
I must say that with your new policy of not including price as a factor in reviewing that your Videobox score is WAY too high seeing that you cite the cheap price as a plus.
|
12-29-07 08:34pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
jd1961 (0)
|
I would like to point out that Porn Users has no reason not to include price as a factor of judgement.
|
12-29-07 08:38pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
Toadsith (0)
|
I personally think price isn't a factor as each user has a different budget and different view as to what is expensive or cheap. I'll obviously point out strange price issues like with the 21 Sextury thing that had 3 different price - all for pretty much the same content - but I've paid as little as $9.99 to join a site and as much as $149.99 - so I think experienced porn users will take the review into account and then make their own decision as to if the price is still worth it or not. Also - the whole logistics factor of keeping up with the price as mentioned is just insane and not worth the time.
Also, I find most sites are the same price - in the $25 to $35 per month region - very few sites honestly stray outside of that - so it really doesn't matter in my opinion. The amount and quality of content is much more of a factor to me. Also search engines - I'm really saddened when sites don't have nice, customizable search engines.
Cheers.
|
12-30-07 12:20am
Reply To Message
|
16
|
elephant (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - jd1961 :
Great idea, I second this. Price in my eyes still needs to be a factor as a lot of surfers are swayed into joining cheaper sites and so they should, I certainly am. I judge a site on value for money too. This seperate scoring will give the reader an insight still into what value this site is for the money.
In my eyes though, all sites should be $19.99 discounts for TBP users and $29.99 for networks. No site in my eyes unless its a really good site network be worth anymore.
|
12-30-07 01:45am
Reply To Message
|
17
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
Price is a factor in my decision to purchase, but I like the idea of a quality score separate from price. It's true that lots of expensive sites are crap and I would appreciate seeing a very low score where the crazy high price is not the factor. A cheap price with a high quality score would catch my eye, too.
|
12-30-07 07:41am
Reply To Message
|
18
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #13 - jd1961 :
Your thoughts about video box got me to thinking. There are three factors that go into my decisions and it'd be great to have three scores to look at : Quality, quantity and price. I agree that video box is strong on price and quantity and mediocre on quality. These are factored into my purchase of video box, at least.
|
12-30-07 07:47am
Reply To Message
|
19
|
Monahan (0)
|
REPLY TO #18 - Jay G :
I think Jay G has nailed it. Three ratings makes the most sense.
Quantity:
I have gone to a great looking site at a good price to find that I can download everything on it in a week or so. Relatedly, I've gone to high rated sites that have infrequent updating, or none at all. A quantity rating makes great sense.
Quality:
A rating of quality that is not influenced at all by price or quantity adds considerably to the value of the rating.
Price:
Stating the price is good, but the TBP folks have seen everything so they can add a price/value subjective rating to the mix. If it's independent from the content rating, than it's a big addition to the review.
|
12-30-07 08:38am
Reply To Message
|
20
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
You guys are going hate me for this, but because of the fact that these gorgeous hot naked babes are getting naked for us on camera deserves $34.99 and a high score already! If they were not stripping or fucking on camera for us, would their be porn?
However, because these assholes that basically force these hot babes to receive facials or give them constant blowjobs, or do some of the shit in the website that causes that website to be of poor quality, high price would need to be considered in a score particularly for that site so we can warn our fellow viewers about that site.
I joined Karupsha.com a few days ago because I read some of the reviews made for that site. I love it when the women undress for the camera but I dislike that fact that these babes have to receive facials. I really didn't care about the price!! So when you see my receive, I won't even mention price, I'll go full blast verbally on the content! I will only mention price if I think the website is totally fucked up!
|
12-30-07 11:06am
Reply To Message
|
21
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Rick :
THANK YOU RICK!! Good stuff, man! Why are we paying these women only $10/$15 to strip for us?! They deserve $34.99 a month!!
If we are to complain about anything, it is the content!!
Brother, this is what us viewers are making these women do for us for $10/$15 a month:
- Double Penetration (Too much hot dog for one bun!!)
- Gagging
- Basically nuttin' but facials
- Gangbangs
- Bukkakes
- Ass to Mouth
In my opinion, any website with this content will get a low score from me just to piss off the webmaster because this shit basically humiliates the woman!! I am not into this form of porn!! I don't rag about price really because these women deserve $30 a month!!
|
12-30-07 11:33am
Reply To Message
|
22
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #21 - Pinche Kankun :
Not that any of this has anything to do with the poll, how many women do you think are forced at gunpoint, or by any other means of force, to become a "porn star"? As with any job, if you're not smart enough to take a good close look at the industry you're getting yourself into, you get what you deserve. It's all about choices...
|
12-30-07 08:17pm
Reply To Message
|
23
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #22 - RagingBuddhist :
Okay I see what you are saying. So in order for these hot sexy women to get what they deserve, I need to become a porn producer and put those other guys out of business!! MOST EXCELLENT CHOICE!!!
|
12-31-07 01:08am
Reply To Message
|
24
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
Its more a yes and no. I would not use cost when scoring when judging a well established site with loads of content. However it needs to be brought up when a little junky solo site with hardly any content and bad quality is charging as much as one of the top sites. That is the only time the grade should be reduced.
|
12-31-07 10:27am
Reply To Message
|
25
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #15 - Toadsith :
149.99? Wow! If not a secret, what's the name of the site? (should have been something REALLY great to warrant such big spending, shouldn't it?)
|
12-31-07 10:48am
Reply To Message
|
26
|
Toadsith (0)
|
REPLY TO #25 - asmith12 :
MET Art actually - it wasn't for just one month (though I have paid $50 for one month - I can't remember what site that was off hand though), but I did pay it one solid chunk. I got a much better deal when I paid that price - I think it was for 9 months or something - I don't recall exactly - it was years ago. I was really really into glamour photography back then - I paid $100 for a multi-month membership to Hegre Art too - though his stuff wasn't as good as it is now - kinda wish I had waited a few years, oh well.
|
12-31-07 11:34am
Reply To Message
|
27
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #26 - Toadsith :
I see, thanks. For multi-month it isn't that big price :-).
|
12-31-07 12:48pm
Reply To Message
|
28
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #23 - Pinche Kankun :
Huh?
|
12-31-07 01:25pm
Reply To Message
|
29
|
Toadsith (0)
|
REPLY TO #27 - asmith12 :
Indeed, multi-month memberships do frequently hit that price range. It was more of an illustrative example as a lot of people won't drop a single payment of over $100 for porn, but yes it was slightly deceptive and done a bit for shock value (muhahaha). None the less, if I think a website is going to have the most freaking awesome porn ever (For example: Audrey Hepburn's secret hedonistic sex orgy parties filmed use Cinerama™ and presented to us in HD 1080p) I would indeed pay $150 per month for it. I really think that an individual user's perspective toward a monthly price very much demands on their financial situation and how much they value the potential product.
As a reviewer - I try to describe the quality of the service provided by the porn site. A general description of the content, the resolution of the content, how much of it there is, if can you see the content well (in focus, good lighting, good camera work), if the site is easy to navigate - so on. I try not to put personal tastes into the review too much other than the basic fact that I join sites I'm interested in rather than just plowing through a list in alphabetical order.
Cheers and happy a New Years to all of PornUsers.com tonight!
|
12-31-07 01:44pm
Reply To Message
|
30
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #28 - RagingBuddhist :
Oh come on, man. You know what I am sayin'. I cannot complain about anyone's erotic preferences, but I can be an example of the kind of descent and pleasant porn that I so fantasize about by being a producer of it because producers today don't make it because everyone keeps requesting this crappy porn.
I am talkin' I will pay a woman $1000 just to fuck the shit out of some guy then make HAVE to pull out and splatter her body with his load... I'll pay her $500 EXTRA If her pussy makes him nut early... like 10 minutes into it!!
|
01-01-08 09:12pm
Reply To Message
|
31
|
SnowDude (0)
|
Overall I think the site's content and service should be the only criteria, but there are some sites where the price makes it so unlikely I'd ever join that some consideration of that should be included. It could be the greatest site ever, but $40 for a porn site is just ridiculous.
|
01-03-08 06:57pm
Reply To Message
|
32
|
Pornjackker (0)
|
I thank Rick for stating why price is no longer being considered in scoring the reviews.
|
01-09-08 04:08am
Reply To Message
|
33
|
Davit (0)
|
I agree that cost should not be factored into the site's score. The main reason for this is, there are some truly awful sites out there that are a complete waste of time, but only cost literally 2 or 3 dollars to sign up to. If cost was a factor, you would have these bullshit sites getting higher scores than, say, Club Sandy, which is a fine site, but quite expensive.
I say: mention the price in the review by all means, but base the score purely on the quality/quantity of the content.
|
02-06-08 02:14pm
Reply To Message
|
34
|
ramscrota (Suspended)
|
The price is important, because we look for value for money. I have no problem with the girls getting paid - in fact, I think they should get paid more on the bad sites, because undountably they have to put up with more bnullshit. But if the morons run a bad site, the dollar should bite their bums, and I think a rating of what the sites is worth would be good.
|
02-12-09 12:50am
Reply To Message
|
