| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Score should be an indication of the value of a site. If a site has very little content, even if the content is extremely high quality, then, unless the price is very low, the score should be adjusted to reflect the small amount of content.
The score of a site should reflect:
1. the quality of the site content
2. the amount of the site content
3. the ease/difficulty of accessing the site content
4. the price of the site
5. If the site gives access to other sites, then that should be reflected in the score as well.
6. So I don't believe the score for a site is a precise number set in stone, but a judgment on the part of the reviewer
7. And different people can come up with very different scores for a single site, depending on how they value the site contents, and ease of site access
8. And there can be other factors affecting the score of a site, such as pre-checked cross sells in the signup form, or regional pricing for people living outside the U.S. Which could be considered part of the membership price, or as separate items that can affect the membership price.
|
11-17-10 12:58am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
tangub (0)
|
Personally i like value for money so i would probably never join a new site anyway, I like to keep an eye on sites and let them grow for 2 or 3 years before i dive in so my personal opnion is that a new site with little content is not really worthy of a high score no matter what the quality is so i go along with adjust the score later as the content grows.
|
11-17-10 04:15am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Denner (0)
|
It's NOT the amount - it's the quality....
If I join a new site with let's say only 30 vids and sets...and the content is just what I was looking for - well, it's obvious.
But it's also a yes and no question depending future updates - you might see/realize that at the site - even if it's quite new.
Bottom line: Joining a completely new site - the review CAN be difficult - but like most here should: wait till the last week (if you only join for a month) before your review - by then you will - probably - also get an idea about the updates...
|
11-17-10 06:54am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Lionheart (0)
|
It depends if the site is still updating or not. If the site is new has a small but quality amount content and has a very steady updates then it will not effect their score, just my bottom line. If the site is no longer updating it will effect a bit, but the amount of content is a small part from my personal ratings.
|
11-17-10 11:27am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
Scores tend to indicate the enthusiasm of the reviewer which is an important, but not the only, factor in deciding if I'll join. Apples are not oranges and we all have things we prefer, so one person's 95 might be another person's 50. More important is the information and warnings provided that help me decide about joining.
I don't mind someone giving a very high score about a site he or she is excited about if they give information that helps me know if I might share their excitement or walk away because we have different tastes in sex.
An old Latin phrase I sort of learned, "De gustibus non est disputandum," means you can't argue about individual tastes. There are no numbers that measure sites equally for everyone.
|
11-17-10 12:31pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
exotics4me (0)
|
I remember having a similar discussion on here a few years back.
One major point that is often missed is: How much of the content do you keep?
I think once you look at it that way you see that the quality is more important than the quantity. Especially if you put it into some kind of ratio. Say a site has 50 total sets and you keep all 50. You get another 50 sets you keep from a site with 10,000 sets. With me, I would rate the first one higher just because of the ratio of good content compared to the endless hours of digging through the bigger site.
|
11-17-10 01:25pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I agree with tangub (response #2) above. I've discovered several sites and asked them to be listed at TBP and PU, but I've avoided reviewing really new ones with few scenes.
How are you going to look as a reviewer if, after giving high marks to a new and spotty site, you find that they don't update much any more?
Take She Don't Blush. I had that one listed. It looks nice, but the updates have been very erratic and there haven't been that many since the listing. It's got a taint I wouldn't want on my rep, man!
And it can work the other way, too. I made a harsh comment about VIParea early in its existence. What I said was true at the time (all non-exclusive material), but that's completely changed and now I think it's one of the better exclusive glam-style sites out there. And so my review reflected that as I ate my humble pie.
So I agree with tangub, and I avoid reviewing sites that still have their placentas sticking to them.
And as far as quality vs. quantity is concerned, well, that's kind of a false dichotomy. Both are important. I'd rather be able to review on both.
Or: Being half-assed isn't good, no matter which cheek you're left with.
|
11-17-10 02:51pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
pat362 (0)
|
How much content is too little? I joined 2 sites recently and gave both of them some high scores. The first was fuckstudies and I gave it a 92 and they only had 53 updates at the time of my review but many of them were keepers and you got access to many other sites with hundreds of updates. The other site is gapeland and I gave it a 90. That one has only 17 scenes but you get access to 29 other sites right away and that gives you hundreds of scenes as well.
If you can't give a high score and/or review a new site then that means that others won't necessarily hear about the site. A high score is one thing but it's what you get that is more important.
|
11-17-10 06:17pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
slutty (0)
|
users should be able to give a site whatever score they think is appropriate. If the place only has 5 scenes, but they are all excellent and the user feels it was worth it, why shouldn't they be able to score it well?
|
11-17-10 07:44pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
anyonebutme (0)
|
I always find it amusing when people try to dictate what *other* people must think of a site, must rate a site.
If you like a site, and that site has a few scenes, score it however you want, and make a note in the comments the approx. number of scenes they have at the time of the review.
|
11-17-10 10:31pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
anyonebutme (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Drooler :
"how are you going to look"?
You are going to look like a reviewer who gave your honest opinion on what the site was at the time you reviewed it. Look, no matter what updates come from there on forward, the site should still retain all the material that existed when you reviewed it. There is no reason at all to hold off a review based on how the site may adjust in the future.
|
11-17-10 10:37pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
anyonebutme (0)
|
This poll question is basically this question:
"Do you primarily value porn by the content of the scene, or by the price tag?"
|
11-17-10 11:22pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Cybertoad (Disabled)
|
Lets be honest we all love quality, but looking at the forums over the last year. The debate or mash downloads and bandwidth are near the top of the list. Why yes some sites are just huge and so is content.
However, I have joined sites with limited content and I could not give a good review or even give one at all as how do you give good score to a site based on small content. I for one need some basics met to spend my hard earned cash :-)
|
11-18-10 09:34am
Reply To Message
|
14
|
rearadmiral (0)
|
As long as the review notes that the site is new and small, I'm okay with a good score. I think I did just that with Public Disgrace when it was relatively new and still small.
|
11-18-10 11:28am
Reply To Message
|
15
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #11 - anyonebutme :
Well, if you really wish to review a recently launched site that has only a smattering of content, be my guest.
As for reasons, I've made mine clear. If you don't get it, well, that's you. JustYou.
And as for your saying this: "I always find it amusing when people try to dictate what *other* people must think of a site, must rate a site," if that's not pot calling the kettle, then I don't know what is!
I mean, are you really THAT self-unaware?
|
11-18-10 12:30pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
RustyJ (Suspended)
|
Thanks for replies. My own idea is that I can give a new site with little content a high score if the content is worth it AND it's updating. If it stops shortly, I'll come back and adjust the score.
|
11-19-10 12:14am
Reply To Message
|
