8k is totally ridiculous. Some guy comes along and sees a site rated high because the moronic paysites have encoded it to 8k just for you, they join, can't play the videos and cancel. 8k is a feature. There's no way it should be something that causes the ranking to be higher. Ranks "should" be about the average user experience. But whatever. It's not like review sites have ever really given what I would call "realistic" ratings.

Isn't a review site essentially just an affiliate with the job of making the most money possible?

It's not the fucking zagat guide.

Well, this is the conclusion you came to when we were talking about it a while back.

I can't see how they make more money by promoting the same old sites all the time....do they get more money from the big players?

Isn't bitching about things what GFY is for ?

Pointlessly bitching about someone else's business model knowing that you won't change it is what Markham does. You don't want to be thought of like him, do you?

This is how you would rate video quality.

1) shot with professional camera and lenses, Sony EX1, EX3, Canon 5D, etc

2) In Focus

3) correct exposure

4) well composed and framed

5) good use of Close Ups, Medium Shots and Wide shot in an effective sequence

6) well lit, with key lights, fill lights, back lights, kickers and background, lighting that adds to the atmosphere and effect of the scene.

7) Proper and good grading

8) Good encoding at a rate that allows it to be watched on a computer at 25 fps without dropping frames.

9) Sound, to be recorded with a professional microphone, separate from the camera, boomed. Mixed and balance in good stereo or 5.1.

In other words if a site scored 15 for video quality it would be the same as he could expect from a Standard TV program.

I would recommend you read "How to Read a Film" this discusses in depth the questions you need answers to.

How to Read a Film

Amen to that! And yes, your site rocks ;)

First off, we set the bar at 8k, not to tell sites what to do, but to let other sites know what others are doing. We're watching it happen. And that's not to say you have only one quality choice when you join such sites. Many have much lower bitrates available. But for those consumers who want the best, it's there for them.

And here's a brief list of the "moronic" companies offering fantastic quality videos:

21 Sextury Cash
Blazing Bucks
DDF Cash
FTV Cash
Hard Glam Cash
HDV Bucks
Jugg Cash
Met Art Money
Mofos Cash
Nasty Dollars
Naughty America
OT Cash
Payserve
Twistys Cash
Ztod

And a lot of these "morons" are encoding 10k+. I'd argue that these are some of the most experienced companies online. You don't think they know what they're doing?? :)


It depends on your business model. We can make money by giving the honest facts. It works for us.

And no, we're not Zagat... but we're trying ;)

Now we're talking! And that's not bad. You could probably add a few more in there, too. Quality models, maybe, judged by performance. Effective storyline. Effects. That could easily be a site worth putting together. Would it take a trained eye in production? Yep. It would. But no matter how inclusive you made it, along those lines, though, there would be a bunch of people looking for a technical dissection. There is room for different sites with different ways of calculating value. Nobody speaks for everyone. We just try and do a good job from the viewpoint we represent. :)

I think if I remember correctly from the seminar in Amsterdam, one very encouraging thing to hear was that Rabbits do try to give their reviews to the in house writers who are into that particular niche etc. This would allow for some pretty fair grading on the stuff that's not technical.

On another note Cherry, we're interested in doing a little thing on your site in Hot UK Babes magazine. Get in touch with pics, logins etc if you're interested.
[email protected]

Thanks

All review sites review on size mostly. The actual porn and wankability of the scene is something fre even mark.

How many videos, how long, how wide. Is about it.

How many pictures, how many scenes and how big.

Is it in focus and lit sometimes features.

Then is it exclusive. Then can it be navigated easily. And does the tour reflect the interior.

For getting a dick up, hand reaching for the lube and keep the guy on the site month after month. They come up with the stock phrase, something like. somebody will like it!!!!!!

In the real world it's like going into a restaurant and reviewing the place on, the size of the tables, size of the menu and the cutlery. Nothing but the food.

Because somebody will like it. :Oh crap :Oh crap :Oh crap :Oh crap

What do you thing is "Quality" when it comes to porn?

Because I've been inside Mofos and it's not quality porn. It's characterless porn scenes churned out for a cheap price.

However if Cherry's videos were reviewed on ability to get a dick hard. We would need a new level. Decimal points would be handy as well. :1orglaugh

Quality models has nothing to do with the technical quality of the video. I was showing you all the more important factors concerning quality that you want to ignore out of laziness or ignorance.

Of course companies want the quick sales point "HD" High RES, 8000 + blah blah blah

Do you represent the punter and you are going to tell him that really this means little, and the hotter better video does not have to be encoded at 8000 bits ?

No you are going along with the companies that want to con the punter with the cheap sales gimmick. Having them make the real effort and investment that making better quality would involve.

Tell me , what speck computer does the punter need to play these 8000 bit rate movies?


A far better solution would be to supply the files on DVD images so that they can play the files with hardware doing the encoding. ( we do this on our site www.erotiquedvd.com )

Yep, we do. You are most certainly correct. It helps, for sure.

That's just it, Paul. You can certainly review a site based on your idea of what makes good porn based on the production values and wankability, but you will never be able to speak for everyone. Look at amateur porn, one of the best-selling niches. People are after poorly lit and shot scenes with no stories! We try and take the position that we can't judge what people think makes a good scene and what doesn't, who they'll think is hot or not. We try and judge what we can quantify and let the user judge the rest from the tour.

Here's a quote from one of your users left on our site back in January:

Comments by: NudeFan - Score: 30/100 - Date: 1/4/2011
For sure, movies are unique and not the main stream of what is custom in that branch. When I tried to subscribe, I saw an offer for $30 the first month, after I clicked 'sign' it changed to $30 for two weeks. I even found a page where is written, that you have to pay $20 for the first 14 days, then $10 for each 3 months (Both other offers asked for $10 each 2 months) Not only the unclear pricing disappointed me, also the 1080 sign shown for some movies. After I subscribed, I tried to download the movies in highest resolution, but I only got 576*1024. I contacted this page and got as reply, that 1080-movies take a very long time to download and many computers are not able to play them. And other pages are also advertising with Full HD-Movies and don't have then. If this page would have a clear pricing plan and would not suggest to have 1080 videos, I could give her 90 points, but with that fraud 30 are a plenty!

Sure, he has a number of issues, but it's interesting that he says your video quality isn't up to snuff. It's funny how this is a complaint when you pride yourself on your production levels. You do all the hard work then do yourself a disservice in the end by not delivering the quality your product should be capable of. That's sad, mate. Just sad.

paulmarkhamsreviews.com

Haha... That would be the best review site ever!

Sure, he has a number of issues, but it's interesting that he says your video quality isn't up to snuff. It's funny how this is a complaint when you pride yourself on your production levels. You do all the hard work then do yourself a disservice in the end by not delivering the quality your product should be capable of. That's sad, mate. Just sad


Yes, and you should see the mad e-mails the guy sent complaining about everything from the weather to the colour of the socks.

Yes we have a few complaints, but no more than any other site, and none so bad as those posted on Brazzers on your site which you rate at 97 %

You in your review of our site you say

"So far, there are 30 full-length episodes available, along with about 48 striptease scenes, giving you a total of 78 videos. This actually isn't bad at all, given the excellent-quality Windows Media files

If you're looking for adult films with a story, music and some acting, then the excellent quality and fun settings make Cinema Erotique a worthwhile investment for a month"


So this is a red herring as you continue to ignore the issues I raised.

Can punters have HD on their computers, no they can't , it is that simple. 8,000 + would be a poor quality Standard Defintion.

Could you address the issues of what computer you will recommend your readers to buy to show their 8,000 K movies ?


One wonders why you make such a pig's dinner out of the whole affair, most film and book reviews have a simple 5 star score.

Maxim, you could always ask them to take down your review.

They are a private business and obviously aren't going to alter their model to accommodate the no doubt huge amount of money they will make from you. I can see you're frustrated by the way their site works.

So, your options are:

1) Shut up
2) Ask for your review to be removed

You are turning into Markham, man.

I was shooting amateur porn long before a lot here were born and as late as 2008.

My turn on is Penthouse, Ed Powers, Buttman, Private, Frank Thring, Steve Perry, Viv Thomas. In fact it's not teens and if you look at the porn I shot and think beyond the pigeon hole most here do you see exactly what it is.

It's real orgasms, seeing girls really getting into it and wanting me to join in as well. Sometime by talking or a look or just the position of the body.

I shot teens because I can, dead easy if you're a flirt like I am and they sell if you find fresh faces. Teens do nothing for me unless they're real teases and highly sensual and sexual.

Amateur has nothing to do with lighting. Never did and never will. It's about the model being a real person who the viewer thinks he can meet on his street and fuck, it's the neighbor next door who has a secret life fucking strangers. It's about the person not the lighting.

It has to have a story. Otherwise it's just another badly lit porn scene. The story is who she/he is. Not story like a feature film, just something that makes her real to the viewer. I never opened a site earlier because I couldn't get amateur ot of Czech models. Could do poor lighting and poor shooting in my sleep, or get some guy with no experience to shoot it. But that's just poor porn.

To get a model out of her skin and into being herself in front of a stranger with a camera while she's there to earn money is tough, really tough. A guy off the street can't do it. He can shoot a naked person badly.

I can also revue and critique. Leg sex, big tits, Milf and a few other niches.

The most important thing is after 30 years being in porn I do know there are basic rules that have little to do with lighting.

Still the problem you face with critiquing the content for what it really is, is exactly the same every critic and readers of critics has. It will always be one of personal taste and the critic has to get that over.

How about having me critic the niches I'm into and getting others to critic the niches they are into.

Here's a quote from one of your users left on our site back in January:

Not my site so no comment on this. I think you're mixing me up with someone else.

Obviously you have to tell the surfer that the site is clear in what it offers.

Would he of complained if the movies had "knocked his socks off"?

http://www.petswelcome.com/articles/...e-feedback.jpg

Cat fight! :thumbsup

I agree with you. I think that is the best. They have one idea and only one of what the erotic can be.

So we will ask for our review to be pulled.

The specter of turning into Paul Markham is too horrible to risk.

GFY can then go back to talking about what is really important like Obama, and what chicks Rob has shot lately.

paul start up paulmarkhamsreviews.com and take over the market with your near genius knowledge of porn sites and porn surfers.

instead of a star system you could use "Viv Thomas'"

like mofos only gets one "Viv Thomas" while penthouse gets 4.

Hey Doug we have been rendering videos at 10000 kpbs for over a year.. can I get bonus points?!! lol

Funny, I was just thinking I would probably need to jump the rate soon.
Of course for Ipad2 users we have to offer like a 500 kbps shit version. But we have users who download our HD movies and watch them on their HD tvs, so you have to make multiple versions to cover your membership base.


I love the conversions I get from Rabbits (review sites in general rock for us actually). Can I get brown nose points too?? :1orglaugh

I was referring to Cherry.

Anyway, Cherry, I'm running an intel 2.4gig quad core with 4 gigs of RAM on a 32 bit OS. I have a $200 solid-state drive. (I say it's an H263 file... but it's H264) Here she is..



You may not have this box, but it doesn't cost thousands of dollars. It's here now, and there will only be more systems capable of this going forward. People want to DL these files and play them on their big screen TVs. I don't get why this is so amazing to you. Why are you so against the flow of technological advancement and the growing number of people seeking it out? You can only stick your head in the sand for so long.

You can get all the bonuses you want, Anna! :)

I was just yappin with Kenny. He was encoding at 7k. He's bumped it to 8k. Damn that dude is smart! :)

And that's just it. Not everyone will want an 8k+ file. But everyone is happier with options.

Zagat got bought by Google...

Yay!

Kenny is sooooo last year! lol

omg I just spit coke all over my screen :1orglaugh

Thanks, I needed that :thumbsup

You're a funny guy, Roald. It was good to chill with you this past week. lol

Sorry, please accept my apologies.

As for critics with different tastes and experiences. A profile of the critics would be a good help for this.

And a "personal opinion" review box.

Review all the physical elements as you do now. but go the next step.

Today to get a high mark a site can shoot cheap cloned fake porn with a decent camera and get decent marks. None of which gets a guys dick hard and that's what this business is about.

I know that it's patently obvious amateur porn should contain this. Still needed to mention it.

It's all about the girl next door who would fuck the viewer. Which is why amateur porn of Russians isn't going to turn a guy on in NY, as much as an amateur girl from say the Bronx. This is a girl he could have. The Russian not a chance, unless he lives in Moscow part of the year.

Amateur porn is more about personality and who the model is than the lighting or poor shooting.

I'll show you guys some amateur porn I shot in the UK for the UK market.

If last year was 2004, I suck :disgust

tons of zingers in this thread.

Paul, the amateur porn they are talking about is not the amateur porn you are talking about..


And Doug, nice to see you are giving streaming the same weight as download now. I remember doing a thread like 2 years ago asking why that isn't the case and at that time everyone still said that download is the only thing surfers want. :thumbsup

:1orglaugh

Doug, I know your review site gives very worthy reviews... I was told which niche our sites were rather than placing them where I felt best.
You're choices were more for the review & the surfer than for the sale :thumbsup

Free porn??? they click porn & check a load of tubes :2 cents:

I agree that all the points that you have made about the review of content from a website should be taken into account. However, if a producer puts his heart & sole into their productions, it's not the main factor considering it could be a great scene, yet cant be enjoyed if it's been encoded low... as a positive note, why not encode your new footage or encode your older footage in higher rates? Then you would get the best of both worlds :thumbsup


What does it matter what you think!? You chat crap & obviously are a troll with a second name on GFY, and heres betting you own very lousy sites & content yourself! :2 cents:

Get that sig removed, its the ban hammer for you, considering all my models have always been paid! :)

1) negative
2) negative
3) encode the footage in a higher bit rate & ask for another review....

From past experience with RR. I would have thought Doug would be happy to get his team to review the website again.

For an advertising guru, you are a negative mother focker :2 cents:

Actually.. I know for a fact some of those companies don't know what they're doing by encoding to really high bit rates. They're just doing it because they "think" it should be done and because they see others doing it or because their video guys says it would be cool to do it... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

There's a lot of reasons that conversion rates, retention etc has dropped over the last few years and one of them is because companies have moved to catering to those with high end systems instead of going after the mass consumer. This is just another example of that. The US has been the prime market for everyone. But with the shit that's gone down with credit over the last few years, there's just not as many buying porn or that can afford the internet connections or computer systems to actually buy it. Emerging markets is where the future will be and those guys just won't have the systems to play a lot of the vids.

I look at it this way... Porn is about volume. Youtube is a volume video provider. They cater the masses as porn should. They don't encode videos to high bit rates so that practically anyone can watch the vids. The rise of the tube site should prove this point to anyone. Porn surfers don't really give a shit about high quality porn. They want to be able to view a lot of it to find just the right ones to get themselves off. A very small percentage of the surfers care about quality so why put so much time, money and effort into catering to them... Deliver to the masses and everyone will make a lot more money again.

He didn't complain about the video quality. He was complaining that what was advertised was not what was delivered. Big difference. Porn surfers aren't going to buy a membership because you have HD video. If they have a choice between a couple sites then that might be a factor. Porn consumers buy memberships because a site has the video(s) that they're interested in watching. Beyond that, everything else is just a bonus.

Very well said!

Shouldn't you be cleaning spunk from that rancid ugly cheap bare back hookers cunt?

I bet it stinks in there :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

My friend, it was so good meeting you and getting to hang for a while! And I know - the streaming was a long time coming. It wasn't such a big deal in 2003. And in another eight to ten years, we'll need another retool.

Cheers! I was disappointed I didn't see you in London this past weekend. It would have been nice to chat in person. ;)

I agree that emerging markets are going to hold a lot of wealth in the years to come and that they will want and be happy with what we were happy with eight years ago as far as file sizes and video quality. That's not our market, though.

And YouTube now has HD vids available. Any thought that they've been serving up lower quality vids has more to do with the fact that they run a free site than them trying to serve the desires of the public. People don't want tube-quality content. They just love it because it's the best free content they can get and it's not a killer on bandwidth. It will be different in ten years. People will love and expect better quality tube vids. It's the natural progression of things.

The people we serve at Rabbits are those that want to pay for premium content. Show them tube grade (as long as it isn't really niche & hard to find) and they won't be satisfied.

You're right. It wasn't a out-and-out complaint about quality, but he did write and ask about the 1080. He knew what he was after and knew he wasn't getting it. People want quality. They recognize it. If they didn't, we wouldn't be in business.

Several posts have raised the point the Rabbit Reviews is a private company, but private companies have responsibilities to both the audience they claim to be offering fair reviews and to their sponsors who have the right to have their sites fairly accessed.

By using confusing, misleading and inaccurate rating system that distorts the results they misinform their clients.

For example defining video quality only in terms of bit rate and not the other numerous factors that effect visual quality.

The suspicion must be that this is done just to promote the few sponsors that appear on the first page of their website.

As your review does not present a truthful picture of our website we have stopped your affiliate account and ask your to remove the review of our site.