Reviews: is there such a thing as too much honesty? [Archive] - GayDemon.BIZ

archer

03-20-2008, 11:07 AM

Gaystoryman

03-20-2008, 11:20 AM

in my time i've seen a lot of crappy sites. Some sites are little more than the tour a few 3rd party feeds. Others seem to be just email collection fronts.

And yet, when i read the reviews of these sites it all appears sweetness and light.... blah blah blah. gag me with a spoon.

Some review sites that i've seen will be a little more honest but even there there's usually a postive gloss/spin on whatever is the piece of crap du jour is.

Am I missing something? Is there something wrong with posting a little (accurate) bitchiness?

ie. paying to watch your sainted grandmother have sex with a herd of horny donkeys would be hotter than paying money to join this site.....

now it might not make you any friends in the industry i suppose but if the review is accurate.... especially if the site is a scam... why not?

I can't speak for others who do reviews, but I believe the concept is that the person you are doing the review for, is looking for sales. I find it hard to do reviews, because frankly, my concern is what will the surfer think and how sugar coating, will effect the creditability. Then too, as I have been told, it is about opinions, and I have a generally nasty one when it comes to what I think is good or bad. Too picky, too demanding, but hey, the wife doesn't mind :rolleyes:

As a consumer, I really want honesty, when I dont get it, I don't trust the referrer, or the company that gave it to me, but then, I am cheap, picky, and well, you get the idea :bad:

basschick

03-20-2008, 12:21 PM

i don't write bitchy reviews. there's no point. what's more, unlike some reviewers i try to see the legitimate good and bad sides of the sites i review. maybe what wouldn't at all satisfy an experience surfer would still be good for a newb who just wants to see porn. if you or i joined a site that was all feeds, we'd be pissed! but a newb might be delighted if they were good quality feeds and plentiful. i have friends who have had that experience and they were just so happy to see all those porn feeds :)

and i once reviewed a site where the guys were gagged till they threw up. on a personal level, YUCK! but you know, there could be people into that. i wrote an impartial review focusing on the technical aspects, updates and layout as if for those people - because, frankly, no one else was going to join that site anyway.

AlexManifestMan

03-20-2008, 12:27 PM

As with everything else, some reviewers are great and some are loathsome. Review sites that ask for new passwords and then never update their reviews are really on my black list. Grossly inaccurate information is shoveled out as gospel. I understand that reviews are subjective rather than objective but I have to say that we have stopped submitting our sites for review. There is way too much in the way of interest conflicts for the practice to be really clean.

Member reviews are far more accurate.

gaydemon

03-20-2008, 12:33 PM

On gaydemon I try and publish honest and objective reviews. The problem with doing that is you do get a lot of grief from site owners. Every site owner thinks his site is the best and cant see any of the fault.. its their "baby".

Smaller review sites would probably have more problems and less likly to be able to publish anything that tells the truth about bad sites.

However I definitly know that objective and honest reviews definitly sells far better than one that is just praise and lies.

in my time i've seen a lot of crappy sites. Some sites are little more than the tour a few 3rd party feeds. Others seem to be just email collection fronts.

And yet, when i read the reviews of these sites it all appears sweetness and light.... blah blah blah. gag me with a spoon.

Some review sites that i've seen will be a little more honest but even there there's usually a postive gloss/spin on whatever is the piece of crap du jour is.

Am I missing something? Is there something wrong with posting a little (accurate) bitchiness?

ie. paying to watch your sainted grandmother have sex with a herd of horny donkeys would be hotter than paying money to join this site.....

now it might not make you any friends in the industry i suppose but if the review is accurate.... especially if the site is a scam... why not?

Relentless

03-21-2008, 06:23 AM

Scam sites get pointed out on my reviews.... most of that comes from their tour making promises that their members area does not match. However, if a tour promises feed content and a low price etc then why would it get a bad review, it's providing exactly what it said it would.

My reviews mention the positives and the negatives of a site objectively. If the file formats are small I mention that.... however many things are a double-edged sword. For example, a site with small file sizes is also one that is very much 'dialup friendly' for users that don't have broadband.

Review sites are not about pointing out the best and worst site, that's much too subjective. They are about informing readers and helping them find the site that's 'best for them' which often is not the site that is best overall.

abostonboy

03-21-2008, 09:36 AM

There is way too much in the way of interest conflicts for the practice to be really clean.

Member reviews are far more accurate.

I have seen that happen. I really like reviews with multiple reviewers. The video game mags have done that for years...

http://www.hunkhunter.com/_reviews/blakemason/

Nice concept in reviews. I was actually going to grab a small snippet of the review and send him some traffic. Unfortunately right click is disabled. So I sent to another review site instead.

archer

03-21-2008, 01:49 PM

i completely agree with the need to be fair both in the positives and negatives.

But in the situation you mention relentless about a tour promising feed content and a low price...... i don't think i've ever seen that.

some of the scam sites will be technically correct when the say xxx thousands of pics and vids and so on: they'll imply that is with site content and not 3rd party feeds.

i think what i would do in that situation is say exactly that: 'while the tour is technically correct in promising xxx pics and vids, the tour misleads in that these are in the form of 3rd party feeds .. most of which aren't connected to the review site in question's niche and so on.

Scam sites get pointed out on my reviews.... most of that comes from their tour making promises that their members area does not match. However, if a tour promises feed content and a low price etc then why would it get a bad review, it's providing exactly what it said it would.

My reviews mention the positives and the negatives of a site objectively. If the file formats are small I mention that.... however many things are a double-edged sword. For example, a site with small file sizes is also one that is very much 'dialup friendly' for users that don't have broadband.

Review sites are not about pointing out the best and worst site, that's much too subjective. They are about informing readers and helping them find the site that's 'best for them' which often is not the site that is best overall.

basschick

03-21-2008, 02:09 PM

what about something like:

"Gay Bear XXX is actually a gateway site to a huge collection of plugin feeds although not many of the feeds offer bear content. It's not a bad site for someone who likes variety but is not recommended for bear fans."

archer

03-21-2008, 06:04 PM

sigh

/me melts

such prose! :)

what about something like:

"Gay Bear XXX is actually a gateway site to a huge collection of plugin feeds although not many of the feeds offer bear content. It's not a bad site for someone who likes variety but is not recommended for bear fans."

basschick

03-21-2008, 07:42 PM

*LOL*

i mean, i know it wasn't a mean bitchy review quote, but do you feel it's fairly honest?

sigh

/me melts

such prose! :)

gaydemon

03-22-2008, 02:43 AM

lol yes Patti is certainly good with words!

what about something like:

"Gay Bear XXX is actually a gateway site to a huge collection of plugin feeds although not many of the feeds offer bear content. It's not a bad site for someone who likes variety but is not recommended for bear fans."

Adam Mason

03-22-2008, 05:28 AM

*LOL*

i mean, i know it wasn't a mean bitchy review quote, but do you feel it's fairly honest?

Sure, how can it not be fair if that's what they are offering?

marcjacob

03-22-2008, 05:50 AM

iif you or i joined a site that was all feeds, we'd be pissed! but a newb might be delighted if they were good quality feeds and plentiful. i have friends who have had that experience and they were just so happy to see all those porn feeds :)

When I first joined a paysite (Bedfellow I think) I spent most of my time in the live shows section, which was all 3rd party feeds. Their own content was great, but my thing back then was live shows like Boys Condo and the prem Video Secrets. Some surfers like that.

Im just putting that out there. Obviously you need enough content of your own, but 3rd party feeds are really important to some surfers. I know when I was just a lowly surfer, I wouldnt join a site unless it mentioned the bigger "live guys" feeds so not having it would mean i simply wouldnt join the site.

basschick

03-22-2008, 09:28 AM

archer

03-22-2008, 09:50 AM

i certainly don't knock 3rd party feeds. they're there for a purpose... even the ones that may not be directly related to a site's particular niche.

nor does a site particularly need 'exclusive' content.

it comes down to what is being promised versus what is being delivered and how to report that.

in my original post i was pointing the finger at what i would call 'shell' or scam (???gateway??)sites that in their tour either completely misrepresent what is in the members' area or pass off 3rd party content as their own.

it's even worse when the feeds have overoexposed content that is as old as the hils.

basschick, your prose makes me weak in the knees :D and astute readers understand what you're saying but i guess it comes down to style.

Some people people like ice cream and others don't..... a writer can't be all things to all people.

basschick

03-22-2008, 10:10 AM

i can write more negative reviews - after all, i do write according to the clients' specs ;)

btw, a lot of review sites hire reviewers who don't understand what reviews are. i used to manage a group of reviewers for one site, and every time we'd need to find a new reviewer, i'd here from 8 out of 10 writers, most of whom had great references, who thought a review was merely a bunch of marketing text about the sites. and of course, if you leave it all to your reviewers and don't double check on other review sites, you won't know that your reviews are complete bs *lol*

i certainly don't knock 3rd party feeds. they're there for a purpose... even the ones that may not be directly related to a site's particular niche.

nor does a site particularly need 'exclusive' content.

it comes down to what is being promised versus what is being delivered and how to report that.

in my original post i was pointing the finger at what i would call 'shell' or scam (???gateway??)sites that in their tour either completely misrepresent what is in the members' area or pass off 3rd party content as their own.

it's even worse when the feeds have overoexposed content that is as old as the hils.

basschick, your prose makes me weak in the knees :D and astute readers understand what you're saying but i guess it comes down to style.

Some people people like ice cream and others don't..... a writer can't be all things to all people.

abostonboy

03-23-2008, 05:50 PM

I need to chime in here. What I find VERY misleading is sites like topbucks that say get access to 20_ sites, then you join and get access to one video feed on a limited trial.

Now with an individual site, I can see that. But how can you advertise get access to 20+ site and give the surfer on video feed?

basschick

03-23-2008, 08:45 PM

many review sites have a place on the ratings that mentions whether the trials are limited.

btw, i feel that a trial means to try something. sees candy gives anyone who walks in a trial of one candy, but they don't give out an entire box. i've gotten trial subscriptions to magazines in the 80's where i got free issue and it was clear to me in their ads that the full subscription included many features such as christmas editions that i didn't get with a trial.

why should a trial to a porn site be different?

I need to chime in here. What I find VERY misleading is sites like topbucks that say get access to 20_ sites, then you join and get access to one video feed on a limited trial.

Now with an individual site, I can see that. But how can you advertise get access to 20+ site and give the surfer on video feed?

abostonboy

03-23-2008, 09:46 PM

why should a trial to a porn site be different?

I agree to a point. But shouldn't a multi access have a trial to each site? Or at least match the content to the site you join. Does it make sense to join an asianguys site and get a muscle feed as your trial with no asians?

basschick

03-23-2008, 10:25 PM

do they do that? if so, that's messed up and also seems to me that it wouldn't cause as many conversions from trial to full.

I agree to a point. But shouldn't a multi access have a trial to each site? Or at least match the content to the site you join. Does it make sense to join an asianguys site and get a muscle feed as your trial with no asians?

RottenRay

03-24-2008, 06:11 PM

I have seen that happen. I really like reviews with multiple reviewers. The video game mags have done that for years...

http://www.hunkhunter.com/_reviews/blakemason/

Nice concept in reviews. I was actually going to grab a small snippet of the review and send him some traffic. Unfortunately right click is disabled. So I sent to another review site instead.

Don't blame Dennis, that was my idea. The idea is to keep the schmucks from being able to copy the whole damn thing, reword a bit and repost it.

Weigh in: Should we do away with the right click blocker?

BTW - thanks for the nice words... Much appreciated!

....

RottenRay

03-24-2008, 06:17 PM

a couple webmasters criticized me because i didn't "ream them", as one guy said. but i write what i feel are balanced reviews - after all, the site in question does have like 50 feeds.

Basschick -

I've read your reviews, and I concur - you do write balanced reviews.

Dennis (http://www.hunkhunter.com/_reviews/) and I try to do the same, and we feel there's no point in reviewing a "bad" site just to have something in the library to show that we can scorch someone.

....

abostonboy

03-24-2008, 08:01 PM

Weigh in: Should we do away with the right click blocker?

yes. those that want to steal the reviews will. I was going to grab a snippet and ask dennis if it was ok.

Also, surfers are not all that bright. They may think the sites you are reviewing have right clicked disabled.

Kinda like they entered the "No Right Click Zone".

Plus, consider all these dang blasted security alerts. You never know what version of each update of a browser/security program brings.