| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
exotics4me (0)
|
I did a follow-up on several of mine because a site had lost its luster from when I first reviewed it. Sandra Shine's site, I believe I rated a 95 at first, but then I noticed anything that was considered hardcore, they wanted you to pay more, and I noticed that the picture sets, though exclusive, the same outfit and poses had been seen before on other sites. Just little things that would take 1-2 points off for. A lot of times you don't see the flaws in sites until you have been on them a month or longer. I make sure before reviewing a site that I have been on it for 2 weeks minimum. This gives me time to check and see if they are updating as advertised, but when you get those rare occasions like a Sandra Shine hardcore picture set, we never know when those things are going to show up.
On the other end was my review of xisty, where, I had scored it in the low 80s because I also had a Babelicious membership that month. Both sites had some exact sets, but Babelicious had bigger pictures of the same set. Later on, Xisty started shooting exclusive videos and exclusive HD videos at that. So, sites like that need to be awarded for improving their content, mostly in Xisty's case, because of pornusers and members talking to the webmaster.
|
09-12-07 12:22am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Nine of the 39 reviews I've done have needed updates/revisions -- close to 25%. Sites improve or sites pretend to. Some sites get worse or stay online without further updating; the latter is so with PureBeautyMagazine. Also, I sometimes miss things I wish I'd put in a review. In some cases, changes occured that there were no way of predicting.
Might it help to allow reviewers to make revisions whenever they need to, instead of just using the "addenda" space which comes out in an unappealing light blue at the bottom of a review? Just date-stamp it "Revised on X date" next to the original post date -- one such date which can change whenever there's a revision. (Don't want an annoying series of such dates.)
I know this is asking a lot from the PU webmaster(s), but seeing how the recent "newbies" status changes were done so well, in addition to the excellent design and functionality of the site in general, I think the suggestion might be feasible.
The webmastering really is superb. Just want to extend my compliments to all.
|
09-12-07 05:40am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Denner (0)
|
For better rating after some time as a member I'd like to mention Pier 999. I rated that site 84 from the start after just a few days as a member/customer. But after taking my time and enjoying the site, I simply had to raise the points - and now after 2 weeks I even would go a bit higher - great site, but just an example.
At the other end I'm almost through with 1 month at Teen Flood. I never understood the 86 at TBP and I still don't. Have you guys seen their latest videos. We're used to half-blurred and half-lousy videos of older dates. But the five or six latest Teen Flood put on - they are just as bad in quality.
Take a look at the start of theese last one: The Teen Flood logo is almost crisp, but when the video starts it's blurred to say the least - and even the logo in the left corner - it's hard to read.
|
09-12-07 05:41am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
There's another reason to allow revisions past the current 7-day time limit. It lets those who at first write short reviews to add more to them.
Sure, some would never go back to add or change anything, but at least everyone would have a chance to.
|
09-12-07 06:11am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
Two reasons I've needed to update:
1. Things have changed since I first belonged to the site. Lack of good updates, etc.
2. I've changed since I first belonged to the site. My original high point excitement and review has been tempered by time and experience. What seemed great six months ago I might now see from a new perspective after viewing many other sites. Now "great" is only "good" or "OK"
|
09-12-07 06:15am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
HeatherMcXxx (Suspended)
|
I find that if I write the review soon after joining the site, the review might not be as valid at the end of the month -- and will thus need to be revised.
That's happened once here already, and it will happen soon with another review I wrote after less than a week on the site.
But I've learned my lesson: in the future, I'll wait. =)
|
09-12-07 06:58am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
apoctom (0)
|
I typically wait towards the end of my membership to write a review. However, there have been a few times that I have needed to go and edit my reviews.
Usually, I will use a site comment to add to my review. I want my review to be read as a snapshot in time. Any changes that happen after my membership ends or after I write the review should be looked at separately. That's why I prefer to use the comments to revise my prior statements. It hasn't happened often, but I think it is a fair mechanism.
|
09-12-07 08:07am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Rick (Suspended)
|
Great comments and this is something we knew would have to be tweaked at some point.
There's no question that 7 days to edit the original review is too short. It also seems apparent that the "Follow-Up" field (available after the 7 days) may not be sufficient.
One alternative would be to allow edits to a review for as long as the review is live (reviews will technically be archived and in-active after 1 year) and remove the follow-up option. In addition, I think it's a good idea to keep archives of previous versions for various reference. So we'd have a date/time for each review revision, note on the review when it's been updated, and link to previous review versions. Something like this would give the writer ultimate flexibility and offer readers the most information.
Let me know if you guys have any other ideas. Thanks for the great info!
|
09-12-07 08:49am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Denner (0)
|
REPLY TO #8 - Rick :
Well, one of the things for sure Rick is right about is date/time for a review. Let's keep that.
And after all most of us do our reviews whitin the first month ( or am I not right here?)
The second thing is the "Follow-Up"-field, which I think is very good: You do your review, but then get wiser( or whatever) during two or three or four weeks (or more) and fell like you want to give your fellow users an ajustment - and a reason for that ajustment.
I think the Follow-Up-systemt is fine - it gives the other users an idea of changes concerning a site - from the reviewers point of view...
And one question to Rick: Any info to us registred users about how many hits TBP gets dayly/weekly/mothly- it must be a LOT more that what we stand for... or is that a company secret?
The reason I ask is the kind of pressure we can put on prices as mentioned in a LOT of comments/reviews.
And by the way - TBP/PU is the absolutly the best guide for a pornuser - as Cheech and Chong once put it: "I'll recommend it to all my friends out there...."
Thanks, guys!
|
09-12-07 09:44am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Rick (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #9 - Denner :
Thanks for your opinions Denner!
To answer your question about TBP hits... TBP does get about 10x more traffic than PornUsers. Combined, TBP and PU send a lot of sales to pay-sites and our influence has grown over the last few years. PU is the first of it's kind and webmasters are starting to take it more seriously as it evolves. Most webmasters have embraced the idea and it's great to bridge the communication gap that's existed for so long.
With that said, we have a long way to go still and all your support so far has been very encouraging for us!!
p.s. For sirius radio fans, listen for our first ad campaign scheduled to run on Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, and Playboy Radio starting next month!
|
09-12-07 12:43pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
Denner (0)
|
REPLY TO #10 - Rick :
Ricks answer put things in perspective - it is great that TBP and PU combined has such a traffic.
And there are two importend factors here:
That we users here at PU can benefit from this in influencing the pornsites (owners and webmasters) to be on their marks concerning both quality of content and price.
It might also be the bridge between sites and comsumers - but in that direction also to rule out or boycutt sites that just try to sell us trash....
Let this PU-thing grow, folks!
|
09-12-07 03:14pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
SnowDude (0)
|
First of all, I should say how great this thread has been. The ease with which we can communicate is simply awesome and I'm excited to hear that PU will soon be hitting the airwaves!
As for updating reviews, I think you should be able to edit the full review up to a month or so, but if that seems too long I'd say it should at least be more than 7 days. I haven't done a lot of updating to my reviews, but perhaps I should.
|
09-12-07 06:48pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #12 - SnowDude :
Ditto to Snowdude on communication at PU. I find myself spending almost as much time at PU as watching porn. I enjoy sharing and getting information from other porn users. After years of not being able to talk about my interests for fear of the social pressures in my area, it's a great joy to share with other decent people who enjoy sex and porn and don't pretend to be sexless puritans.
|
09-12-07 09:21pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
jd1961 (0)
|
Early on I made the mistake of reviewing a site without being in long enough. Now I generally wait a month, or earlier if i was a member there before. But after comparing it later on to similar sites, sometimes an adjustment is necessary.
|
09-12-07 11:25pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
REPLY TO #9 - Denner :
I actually have a rule NOT to review a site within the first month. For myself, I just don't think it's a good amount of time to give a fair review - not to say that I consider all of the reviews done by others within the first month are unfair.
It's just that a site can have an inordinate amount of good or bad stuff posted right at the point that I join and if I'm reviewing right away, I'll be affected by that. I'm bound to give a more balanced review if I wait several weeks.
I agree with leaving reviews available to edit for a year - I think it would be a really good idea to show the before and after scores, though.
For instance: 84 on 1/07/07, 73 on 9/13/07 - with the date of the follow-up comments showing as well, similar to the way that TBP reviews work. If a site hasn't moved a reviewer to change the score within one year, the reviewer should just do a new review if they care to.
|
09-13-07 06:25pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
pat362 (0)
|
I don't know if I'd like to write another review for a site that I've rejoined. I'd prefer if we could amend an older review instead. The only exception would be if a websites had changed to such a degree that it required writing a new review
but then it should be possible to ask that original review be deleted, since it no longer is relevant. One thing I always look for is the date of a review.
|
09-13-07 06:29pm
Reply To Message
|
17
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #15 - PinkPanther :
What I'm about to say isn't intended to be taken personally, but I think I can give a "fair enough" review of a site even after having just joined.
We can only report on a site's history, whenever the time of the review may be. No matter what the time period is of my own subscription to one, there's no way of knowing absolutely for sure whether it will improve, get worse, or stay pretty much the same, during my subscription time or after it, as I see it myself.
So what's "fair" is fair at whatever time I write the review. There's no way that I can reliably choose a time that's going to be fairer than any other time.
I think you mean that your experience of a site during a subscription period may change the longer you are with it, and I can't argue with that. And when you write the review, you can feel more certainty that you are giving a richer account of your experience of it.
The trouble is, it is your experience, and not someone else's. So what I conclude is that no matter what any reviewer does to ensure that a review is "fair" in terms of choosing a time to write it -- unavoidably, in terms of their own experience -- there's no way of knowing whether it's going matter in the minds of other subscribers.
|
09-14-07 05:10am
Reply To Message
|
18
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
REPLY TO #17 - Drooler :
I made it pretty clear that the "wait one month" rule was a rule that I enforced for myself and was not claiming that everyone else on this site should wait that length of time.
There are rules that I believe would help this site.
I just ran across a review for ALS Scan where the reviewer, in a later comment added to her review, said that she had not been a member prior to her review IN OVER A YEAR!!!!
That, to me, is just ridiculous, and should be grounds for that review being yanked from this site altogether.
|
09-14-07 07:43am
Reply To Message
|
19
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #18 - PinkPanther :
You're right, you did make that clear enough. I wound up interpreting it as a "implied" message that it would be better if other reviewers waited at least a month. Well, that's my fault for laying that interpretation on it. Sorry about that.
And that definitely, since the reviews we write turn into pumpkins after one global orbit around the sun, it only follows that pumpkins don't qualify as newly dated reviews! (I read through that whole discussion about ALS Scan before coming back to reply now.)
Well, at least I know of ONE reviewer whose work I'll take with a measure of caution. ;)
|
09-14-07 02:36pm
Reply To Message
|
