1
|
Matt Frackas (Suspended)
|
This is Matt from Matt's Models.
This review is so far off base I can't see how it would be of any value to anyone looking to accurately research adult sites.I also felt it more of a personal attack than an informed review. Here's my response to some of his nebulous claims below:
My reputation is "questionable"? What does that mean or imply? My reputation in the adult industry is immpeccable. I spent 10 years building it. It's only validated by the success of my site, my members, my reputation with the 1,500 models I've worked with, the awards my site has won and the deals I have struck with other reputable companies for producing some of the best Amateur content on the net.
Suggesting our photos were scanned from magazines is a statement I've never heard before and implies that we infringe copyrights of other photographers.
All of my material is 100% exclusive and has always been shot by us. I just looked at the 2 latest photos updates and they are 1067 x 1600 pixels and clear as daylight - unless you have a vision problem.
You CAN find many (not all) our models on other sites, but we are often in the first batch of sites to shoot U.S. models, if not the first - have been since 1999.
We take all valid complaints into consideration as we are always trying to better Matt's Models.
Example: "only 4 thumbs per photo gallery". In fact we had 2 options for members (4 and 20). However the 20 thumbs gallery view was an alternate - some people were missing the 20 thumbs option. As of this week, we changed the default view to the 20 thumbs view.
I felt this reviewer took liberties with the original "terms & conditions" of Porn Users. For example: Do not give "general opinions and little or no reasons to justify them."
Mudman does exactly this. He makes blanket, unclear statements with no evidence, no examples, no reasons, no proof.
How is that useful to potential members?
- Matt
|
03-30-07 11:46am
Reply To Message
|
