Hi guys, just tried submitting a site and received an "Unauthorized" error
-
ISLAND DOLLARS
1000's of Exclusive TS scenes / Constant Updates
Best TS Network your surfers will ever join -
I think your scoring would kill my site since it is a micro niche.
1. We charge a premium membership rate.
2. You have a desire for sites to feature all full HD material which hurts older content and would totally kill say a vintage site.
3. To reach even average score on your site one would need to update weekly at a minimum, even if the content is rare, exclusive, and hard to come by. To get into excellent you want 3 or so updates a day. This again tilts things towards filler sites and hurts niche sites or exclusive content sites.
4. You penalize people like most review sites if people try to protect their content and either do not allow easy download files via zips, you will seriously penalize them if they do pure streaming only.
5. The entertainment score seems very opinion based and again would hurt niches and micro niches - anything that is sort of a specialty.
That would leave me with 1 perhaps 2 categories that would work. 1 of them would be the subjective entertainment score and the other being usability. I know I would end up with a low overall score and a hellish points score for value. So even asking for a review would be asking for bad press.Comment
-
Comment
-
You are right that there may be cases where not all types of sites would score equally high.
However as you can also see, Entertainment is by far the most important score. A score where smaller micro niche sites would typically score very high.
Sites might pump out tons of content and get a high Update score, but if the content sucks, it would score low in Entertainment.
As for the example with vintage sites - they would score lower than an HD-site. And even though their starting point may be lower quality, the quality IS in fact lower than on other sites.
As for streaming only vs. downloaded content. We don't penalize sites that don't offer e.g. zip files, but merely state it as a quick fact about the site, since it matters to some people.
On a general note about review sites: Many seem to forget that there is more to a review than a score - everything that is reflected in the score is explained in detail in the full review text.Comment
-
nice work
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip ManagerComment
-
Very nice indeed.. but Blazingbucks sites arent listed either...Comment
-
Comment
-
Nice site
Good luck
Comment
-
Bump for kickass review traffic.Comment
-
Looks great!
I would put something on your blank search results pages:
For example:
http://www.pornreviews.com/search.php?q=gushing+cunts
I believe if you editted the search.php in the wordpress templates.
I would love to have my sites listed there also.Comment
-
Cool, I'll just repost my comments here then
First, I'm replying to only the solo girl section of your site, since you posted at [that board]
Regarding Quick Facts, I looked at Danielle FTV's review and see a plus sign next to "primarily exclusive content" and a minus next to "primarily non-exclusive content" Why do both exist? And is "primarily non-exclusive content" a fact of the site, or does the minus indicate that it's NOT non-exclusive? I don't need to know the answer specifically for this site, I'm just pointing out that for the surfer this will be a great source of confusion.
And for your personal opinion, I want to mention Amber At Home's review. In a number of places the reviewer says in a roundabout way that he doesn't think much of Amber At Home's looks... almost beating it into the ground. It's fine that the reviewer doesn't like her looks. But that's not why the surfer's reading your review; if they got that far, they probably think she's hot. No one's paying for solo girl porn if they're not already into what she looks like, so why insert your own caveat about the reader's tastes may or may not be? It reads like you don't like what she looks like and you don't want anyone else to either.
And not to mention the fairly cruel words in Rachel Aziani's review. "Gravity has been somewhat unkind to her giant breasts." Why not include pictures and let the surfer decide for themselves? "Rachel is far from ugly, but she definitely looks her age." Do you know how old she is? I personally feel that Rachel looks fantastic and fairly younger-looking for her age, knowing her and all; why did the need for a personal insult supersede more useful statements about the site itself?
I also want to bring up the scoring aspect, especially when it comes to solo girls. I understand that reviews are rarely fair or balanced, and this is no exception. Without an "other" score, how much of the other scores have been unfairly docked because you didn't feel the site "deserved" a higher score? Jelena Jensen, for instance, has a usability score of of 10/15, yet the note says "Great web layout; simple to use." which is expanded upon in the review itself, with no complaints to speak of. Where did the rest of the points go? I'm also curious about why reviewers seem to want to score solo girl updating on the scale of large porn networks. Solo girl sites very rarely update daily, so for the reviewer there is no "perfect" solo girl site. In this aspect I often feel that reviewers try to apply broad strokes for convenience, sacrificing niche appreciation in the process.
You also have a number of typos and readability issues that should be fixed.
I apologize for the lengthy reply, but you asked for it
Comment
-
Thanks a lot for your comments! They are very much appreciated and exactly what we asked for, so no offense takenCool, I'll just repost my comments here then
First, I'm replying to only the solo girl section of your site, since you posted at [that board]
Regarding Quick Facts, I looked at Danielle FTV's review and see a plus sign next to "primarily exclusive content" and a minus next to "primarily non-exclusive content" Why do both exist? And is "primarily non-exclusive content" a fact of the site, or does the minus indicate that it's NOT non-exclusive? I don't need to know the answer specifically for this site, I'm just pointing out that for the surfer this will be a great source of confusion.
And for your personal opinion, I want to mention Amber At Home's review. In a number of places the reviewer says in a roundabout way that he doesn't think much of Amber At Home's looks... almost beating it into the ground. It's fine that the reviewer doesn't like her looks. But that's not why the surfer's reading your review; if they got that far, they probably think she's hot. No one's paying for solo girl porn if they're not already into what she looks like, so why insert your own caveat about the reader's tastes may or may not be? It reads like you don't like what she looks like and you don't want anyone else to either.
And not to mention the fairly cruel words in Rachel Aziani's review. "Gravity has been somewhat unkind to her giant breasts." Why not include pictures and let the surfer decide for themselves? "Rachel is far from ugly, but she definitely looks her age." Do you know how old she is? I personally feel that Rachel looks fantastic and fairly younger-looking for her age, knowing her and all; why did the need for a personal insult supersede more useful statements about the site itself?
I also want to bring up the scoring aspect, especially when it comes to solo girls. I understand that reviews are rarely fair or balanced, and this is no exception. Without an "other" score, how much of the other scores have been unfairly docked because you didn't feel the site "deserved" a higher score? Jelena Jensen, for instance, has a usability score of of 10/15, yet the note says "Great web layout; simple to use." which is expanded upon in the review itself, with no complaints to speak of. Where did the rest of the points go? I'm also curious about why reviewers seem to want to score solo girl updating on the scale of large porn networks. Solo girl sites very rarely update daily, so for the reviewer there is no "perfect" solo girl site. In this aspect I often feel that reviewers try to apply broad strokes for convenience, sacrificing niche appreciation in the process.
You also have a number of typos and readability issues that should be fixed.
I apologize for the lengthy reply, but you asked for it
As for the personal insults - I actually agree with you 100% and considered whether I should ask the reviewer to stop the personal criticism. I ended up deciding to let it stand since that paragraph was intended for exactly that reviewer's personal opinion. But now that I get an objective point of view on that, I see that the decision was wrong and I will get those reviews changed.
Great point about the exclusive/non-exclusive quick fact. It makes sense to only have one.
The readability issue you mention, what do you mean by that?
Sologirl sites: Again you make great points. In this case regarding usability it didn't get more points because our scores are based on average. If a site delivers what is to be expected from almost any paysite, then it will get a score of around average - on our site that means 50 points. The individual scores are also based on the average principle, meaning that only if it delivers extraordinary usability it will get max points in that score. In the case with Jelena Jensen, it "merely" delivered good usability and was therefore rewarded 10/15 points.
The same is the case for updates. I recognize the problem as you explain it. We have however chosen to let the score reflect the specific amount of updates according to the list above the quick facts here: http://www.pornreviews.com/about-reviews.html
Again thanks for pointing out those issues and feel free to elaborate if you want
Comment
-
Good idea - thanks.
Are you thinking of the sites on http://www.bedfellowcash.com/?page=websites ? We don't list gay sites at the moment, but we are considering whether we should start doing so. So unfortunately we can't do that for now.Comment
-
-
We no shortage of review sites a new one should be different. Sadly you seem to make a lot of the mistakes others make.
Technical Content Quality
If you stand on the side of the punter you could be honest.
The internet does not have standard quality video on the internet. HD is just a large picture area at a small bitrate. Try playing it on a HD projector and you will see the HD downloaded from the internet is nothing of the sort.
A MPEG2 DVD which has a standard video at 6,000 bits would blow the socks off "internet HD" .
The other factor is if the punter does not have a top of the line computer he won't be able to play these files, or they will be playing a 1 frame a second.
So HD is a red herring and sites with good quality video could look better than HD (which is shot mostly with amatuer cameras)
Other factors that could be considered, quality of camera used / lens / lighting / sound quality / set design / editing etc...
UPDATES
Here we see you are only considering one busines model. One with monthly fees.
So a punters pays say $30 for the first month and gets say 100 films then next month he pays another $30 for the updates.
In this case updates should represent another 100 films to be of the same value as the first payment. Of course they rarly are and why most punters don't renew, but come back a year later and rejoin...
But if a site charges a flat fee for a months viewing, why should they be downgraded for there updates?
Or is the site charges $30 for the first month and then $5 a month for the renewal?
If a site updates everyday with a crappy video and another once amonth with a 30 minute work of art should the quality out score the quantity?
There are some very interesting small erotic sites out there with very good photography and original creative ideas. Review sites could play a valuable role in helping them find an audience, sadly most review sites seem to be run by ex nerds who value navigation, download speeds more than quality, originality creativity.Comment
-
Thanks for your input Cherry.
I believe we have been over some of the questions you raise before in our email correspondence At least the part about video quality.
I agree completely about those small sites, and it is one of the things I personally love to experience - finding a relatively small site, that delivers a fantastic product, but not a lot of people know of. It rarely happens unfortunately, but occasionally.
In that regard, notice that the Entertainment score accounts for 35 out of 100 points (i.e. more than a third) for Porn Reviews. That is entirely based on the content's ability to arouse the viewer.
Updates on the other hand accounts for only up to 15 points out of 100. So if a site delivers crap content, but does it 10 times a day, it might get max update points, but few entertainment points.
The reason we have chosen to include updates in our score list, is obviously because the most common payment type is monthly recurring membership like you mention. And of course since update amount matters to most people.
Plus again, the score is there to provide an easy overview of the site so certain aspects of it can be compared to other sites. Everything covered by the score is explained in details in the text.Comment
-
You don't really answer the points made. If you represent the punter why do you continue to confuse him with the lie of HD?
You only seem to be interested in one aspect of technical quality - Resolution, whereas there are many.
For example, how many producers use a professional microphone, not the one that comes on the amatuer camera? This dramatically improves the quality of the sound. Lots of punters have good sound cards and speakers.
I still don't get why updates would be a factor if the site did not charge for them.
But the main problem with review sites is that they exist in a "porn world" which seems to ignore what happens in the real world. For example if we took say "9 and half weeks" on blue ray as the artistic / erotic / technical benchmark, and gave it 90%. (could be harder for the extra 10%.....)
Then the sites you rate 90% would get ratings of 3 %.... and that it the reality.
It is because you have a porn mindset that as it is semi legal and there are naked girls all other factors are not really important.
As most of this stuff is now being more and more devalued by tubes and the easy of free porn I wonder where that leaves the old porn model?Comment
-
Site looks very good.
Did not see reviews for either www.paulmarkhamteens.com or www.astral-blue.com hit me up on ICQ for a pass.Comment
-
If the average porn customer was interested in the quality of the image we would not be losing them to Tube sites. We have gone down the "techie" route for years. And the customers are not impressed. Never seen a movie that a movie that made my dick hard because of the quality of the image.
It's the porn quality we need to concentrate on and what happens in front of the lens.
Paul Markham.Comment
-
Those that don't care about the quality of the image have been lost to the free porn and tubes...
I for one do care, I want to see every little pubic hair !
I want the most beautiful girl, doing the sexiest thing I can think of, filmed in the best light, that makes her look even more sexy, wimpering into the best quality microphone recorded at the best possible quality, and projected 5 feet by 3 feet on my HD projector....
maybe thats just me....
If not its good news because it is the value that we add to the performers that makes our product original and sellable.
I would love to find a review site that has half a clue about what photography and video production are about.Comment
-
This is rated as high quality and top site !
This is erotic and has a contribution from the photographer
The lighting is a bit banal but at least trying....Comment
-
I get what you are saying. And yes I agree that just because a video is 1280x720 or 1920x1080 it's not necessarily superb quality. However you cannot deny the fact that it CAN be better quality than if you see a standard definition video - even one that looks really good.
Have you seen the videos from FTV Girls or In The Crack? Those are some of the best quality videos I have seen. It is simply not possible to show that much detail at a "low" resolution like 640x360 for example. Now I am no video technician, but I can see when a video looks good.
I hear your argument of members not being able to play full hd videos - but that doesn't mean you should settle for a lesser quality. Why not offer more than one video option? I mean you mention yourself that you want the BEST possible sound, most beautiful girl etc. Why then settle for less than the best video quality?
I have actually seen HD video on a true HD projector as well as a regular DVD on the same projector afterwards. I can assure you the DVD does not look better.
I don't agree that we focus too much on technical quality over entertainment value. Like I said before, more than a third of the score is comprised of entertainment value alone. It would be more strange if we completely disregarded the technical quality.
Finally a comment about what is more erotic. Allow me to paste a comment I made in another post:
And in some niches it is actually an art to make the content seem amateurish - take a site like Real Ex Girlfriends where part of the charm is that it looks like it could have been made by real couples.I noticed a few discussing what was "real porn" and what was just poorly produced porn without a script, good acting etc.
Take a look at the definition of Porn according to Wikipedia
Quote:
Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
There is no such thing as "the right kind of porn". Porn is whatever turns the viewer on at this current moment.
I know from myself that even though I have favorite types of porn, I don't always want to see the same kind of porn. I mean you might prefer vanilla ice cream, but sometimes you want to have strawberry ice cream or chocolate ice cream...
But if a surfer finds something he really likes - like say a particular guy's style. For example the guy from Amateur Allure (aside from the fact that production quality here is very high) - basically the same thing happens in all the scenes, except the girls are different. But if the surfer really likes this guy's style, then finding tons and tons of the same stuff will be exactly what he wants. He doesn't care whether other consider it monotonous.
So I guess what I'm saying is that we can't develop a universal formula for "good porn" for all people. Rather a site should develop its own concept and aim to perfect it.Comment
-
Here's a link to the first pic you posted - it's hotlinking protected.
http://www.pornreviews.com/reviews/b...-sample_5.htmlComment
-
Comment
-
Either you don't understand the points I am making or do not want to answer them.
I said that a DVD on a HD TV will look better than So called porn web HD....
HD on the internet is a fraud.... If you represent the punters as you claim why don't you state the facts....
Domestic HD like a Blu Ray disk, is a compressed form of High Definition video. But it delivers 1980 x 1020 resolution with 25,000 kbits of colour and other information...
A DVD lower resolution is still better at 6,000 kb than a lot of product pretending to be HD.
Full explanation here;
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=511
I have seen the videos you propose, they are amateur shot video, with no value added by the video makers.
In fact the erotic content too is rather poor too. So many porn producers don't even seem to know what a beautiful woman looks like. (and yes I know its a matter of taste , but why do some many of the taste of truck drivers ? )
I did not say that you should ignore techical quality, but you do not seem to know anything about any other factors that effect image and sound quality.
Cameras/ lenses/ exposure/ lighting direction and contrast/ set and art direction/
You ignored all my points about UPDATES...
You can pretent that porn lives in another world, but if it is legal it exists in the same world as other media and can be compared and judged as such.
I suggest you get your reviewers to look at normal TV and Film and practise there critical skills to bring to bear on the great works of "in Your Crack".
After all the punters are paying sums of money with which they could buy a DVD of a $300,000,000 feature film.
http://www.readfilm.com/HTRBook/HTR1.pdfComment
-
Personally, I don't see the point of anything you are saying... what does this have to do with reality and why are you even trolling with these useless points? Are you not satisfied with the traffic that you get from their sites? I looked at the review they did of your site and it seems pretty reasonable but I don't think what you are saying is even reasonable or relevant to the purpose of their sites.
Comment
-
Maybe you would.
Reality is we're not in the photography and video production business. We're in the porn business. Seeing every pubic hair in perfect detail is easy, go buy a HD DVD player and a wide screen HD plasma TV and buy some of the high production Private movies. And watch some of the most perfectly produced boring porn in the business.
This business is about reality, not perfectly produced images of girls faking it and clearly not bothered and definitely not climaxing. Porn is dirty. Always has been and always will be.Comment
-
Not sure if the lighting is coming off tungsten lights or strobes, but the power of the wall light in the back ground is a give away. Also not sure if it's diffused or out of focus because of the aperture. Pussy and hand are in focus the rest is out.
Erotically it's a good photo, except for the wall light which is off putting. The scissors are a great touch, the girl lying could be looking at the girl sitting but it's a small touch.
Easy to shoot a photo set for Penthouse on a budget of $3,000+ try shooting it on video for a budget most Internet sites want to work in and you will hit a wall. And there is your problem for most High Production porn. The budgets this part of the business works on does not allow the level of quality you're asking for. It takes more then a professionalcamera to produce a professional film.Last edited by Paul Markham; 05-30-2009, 10:15 PM.Comment
-
Comment
-
Very nice review, like it
SIG FOR SALE
ICQ 210874419Comment
-
Not bad at all guysComment
-
Please do, and if you need a reviewer I can get you in touch with a couple of professional gay site reviewers too (email me on luke -a- hunkmoney.com). If you don't you will be missing out on a HUGE market that is still coverting extremely well even in this recession. You know how it is with the gay market: usually no kids, well paid, always horny and joining online sites is something that we actually chat about with each other...so more $$ for you!
cheers,
LukeComment
-
We don't have a problem in producing high quality material.
Of course costs are a factor but the race to the bottom of quantity over quality I believe is reaching a turning point.
If the person making the porn has nothing to add in ideas, lighting production etc then he will fail..
After all every Joe and his grilfriend can by the camera and produce results equal to the average porn site
ANd if this is free http://www.tube8.com/teen/teens-sex/123523/
Who is going to pay for more of the same?
Cheap video cameras led the chase to the bottom of quality, now there is a chance of making something better, something people will be prepared to pay for. That the very good quality digital cameras can capture very high quality film like images. This means that small studios can produce imaginative erotic material which could be watched on people HDTVs. In a few years the internet will be capable of supply broadcast quality TV and major players are moving in for this development.
A good review site could help in this. Sadly the way they judge site seems to bear no relationship to anything.Comment
-
[QUOTE=nation-x;15908714]Personally, I don't see the point of anything you are saying... QUOTE]
Best in cases like this to stay quiet, write something when you do understand.Comment
-
A quick question for you, Cherry: Does the kind of porn you strive to produce, already exist elsewhere? I believe Vivid does this kind of erotic porn stories you talk about, but on a big budget - like the celebrity one with the former Miss USA Kelli McCarty or some of their other productions.
Personally I think porn like that is way too boring and would rather watch gonzo style porn like Buttman or similar.Comment
-
Comment
-
Strange question as you have reviewed all the sites, so you are better placed than me.
Nice that you give us a score of 8 and Vivid 6.5 . But maybe that reflects your love of Gonzo.
Maybe you should consider dividing your reviews up into Gonzo and non Gonzo, Porn and Erotic. You could use better criteria for each type of site.
After all "In The Crack" and "Met Art" are appealing to two different audiences.
This would also help with your conversions as more of your punters found what they wanted....
and maybe we would get more than a click a day !!!!!!!!Comment
-
I know what I think, but I wanted to know if your ambition is to produce porn like Vivid etc. My point would have been that if people want the perfect girls in the perfectly shot, perfectly written stories, then Vivid would be the only major site or production company.
You have a point about being able to provide more specialized reviews for different niches. However we always review every site based on its own premise and mission statement.
Actually I just received a sales report from you earlier today: "Just to let you know that over the last 90 days you sent Cinema Erotique 481 clicks and made us 9 sales."
That's a ratio of 1:55, so it seems our readers get the idea in spite of our misguided review.Comment
-
ICQ: 2588560
Skype: Pornocop
Comment
-
I am not sure why you would need to use email... they have a submission form.
http://www.pornreviews.com/webmasters.htmlComment
-
If you watch our film "The Signal" , that gives you an idea of what we are interested in. Based on a Guy De Maupassant short story it has a story and uncensored sex.
It is a shame that your prejudices favour one sort of work over another and don't allow the audience to find an alternative the mindnumbing boring gonzo....Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Yes but your scoring system does....
If we spend ten times the amount of a gonzo film on are next film we cannot update as often and cannot have Quantity of Gonxo sites,
That is the problem - your scoring system (and that of most review sites) is heavily wieghted in favour of quantity over quality.Comment
-
Looks like a winner all round!
Sex is the question, yes is always the answer .... fucking everywhere you go!
Comment
-
Since the launch we have released these features: External reviews, User reviews and User Comments.Comment
-
Comment
Comment