Hiya
This is an e I sent to the boss of the excellent review site, http://www.x3guide.com, asking for some special consideration. Thought I should keep you guys appraised. img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif
a
Hiya Swede
>Sure, I'd be happy to correct anything in the original review, we want
>them to be 100% accurate. img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif Just mail me any details.
ok, lessee:
- more than "a few ladies" feature in videos - 30 do
- updates are four times a week
- 300 - 350 new pics added a week
IrbLasons' comments on "sharpness" are dumb and inaccurate (also personally offensive to me, but hey it's a free world) - don't suppose you'd care to remove them, and improve "sharpness" score a bit?
Honestly, the posing of my models is not THAT different to any other site, and being amateurs off the street, a bit of apprehensiveness is natural. What do you prefer, a slutty bimbo licking her collagen-injected lips like street whore, or a natural, honest gal off the street giving a big, silly (albeit nervous) grin?
Either way, I don't think it's fair to mark me DOWN for it.
But hey, it's your review site! You do what you want! img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif
>Yup, we're aware of the lack of amateur sites in the gold ratings, and
>the whole review database is slightly..uhm.. unbalanced, we're trying
>to sort out something... I'm sure you will get your gold rating from us
>in the future. img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif
Well, I look forward to that!
Hate to harp on it, but I had a look through the top 18 sites (gold rated), and they do seem to have a lot in common. Mostly, no _soul_. They have the slick feel of money-making exercises, not run by people who care about the content or their customers. There are a few exceptions, but not many.
I reckon that counts for a lot, and at least warrants a mention in your review of my site (as well as others - simonscans for example). Most of my customers count the time and effort I put into the site - making it personal, replying to ppl's posts on the boards personally, etc - adds a lot of value to the site.
People love the idea of being able to hear stories about shoots and models, being able to suggest poses, shoot ideas, video ideas. Tried asking Suze Randall, SJH, et al, about their work practises? From what I hear, you'd be lucky to receive a response from a lackey about an incorrect denied access error, let alone a discussion of artistic merit - and let alone offer a suggestion for a _pose_.
Sure, the fact I make time to spend on that does not make my site "better", but I think that, in combination with other attribs, it's worth something.
Of course, of the 18 sites, 12 of them deal with pro models mostly or only, and they pretty much all have models who are glitzy, heaps of makeups, high heels, oil, fake tits, big hair, high heels. If you prefer that kinda look, that's cool (tho I personally cannot STAND it, which is why I started my own site), but if your reviews REALLY are as unbiased as you claim them to be on your front page, this "gold" list might warrant some changing (yes, as you say, you're working on it!).
>The sites that have the gold now got heaps of
>exclusive, quality content, hours & hours of video, etc. Most of them
>cost alot more than your $15 for a month though. Will see what we can
>come up with here.
Now, obviously I am biased, but I feel duty-bound to point out that we have several hours of video on the site (presented as two to five short clips of 30 models), content that you agree is "quality" (and really, _is_), and is pretty much 100% exclusive (unlike a lot of the current "gold" rated sites) - and there is heaps of it.
Another thing that bugs me - perhaps it should not, but... - is how plenty of those sites get the same models back to do the same kinda shoots over and over and over again (not to mention a pet hate of mine, sites devoted to one model! yuk!). Come ON! ANYONE can get the same damn models back to do the same stuff over and over - especially if they are pro models. That's boring and easy and makes for horribly predictable content.
I work my GUTS out to get new models every single day, and don't get a lot of credit for it from review sites (nor do any sites that work hard at creating original content) - But ppl really appreciate it (well, they seem to, from the e's I get). Plenty of clever models hit every shooter on the west and east coasts - it's not coincidence that the same models show up in each of the mags AND the websites within months of eachother. You give a site "gold" for that?
Your "original" rating applies here somewhat, but I suggest you have 10 points of that for if the models are really _original_, unseen before (which is what most ppl want to see, unless the goal of the site is to cater to porn "stars"), and 10 points for assessing if the work is actually _exclusive_ to the site in question.
I dunno. I agree - it's hard to get a system in place with one person doing the reviews. With more people, it becomes much harder. FWIW, I reckon your sites does it a helluva lot better than JanesGuide (your only real competition) - more reliably, more comprehensive. The ppl at JG are obviously sick of it all, they do things by rote now. I hope that when you get that jaded, you move on to a new career, not act interested and do a bad job!
Ok, so I have given you a piece of my mind, as my gamma (bless 'er) used to say. I hope I have not offended you, or pissed you off. I think your site is great, and the work you do, excellent.
Look forward to hearing from you soon!
Abby
www.abbywinters.com
This is an e I sent to the boss of the excellent review site, http://www.x3guide.com, asking for some special consideration. Thought I should keep you guys appraised. img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif
a
Hiya Swede
>Sure, I'd be happy to correct anything in the original review, we want
>them to be 100% accurate. img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif Just mail me any details.
ok, lessee:
- more than "a few ladies" feature in videos - 30 do
- updates are four times a week
- 300 - 350 new pics added a week
IrbLasons' comments on "sharpness" are dumb and inaccurate (also personally offensive to me, but hey it's a free world) - don't suppose you'd care to remove them, and improve "sharpness" score a bit?
Honestly, the posing of my models is not THAT different to any other site, and being amateurs off the street, a bit of apprehensiveness is natural. What do you prefer, a slutty bimbo licking her collagen-injected lips like street whore, or a natural, honest gal off the street giving a big, silly (albeit nervous) grin?
Either way, I don't think it's fair to mark me DOWN for it.
But hey, it's your review site! You do what you want! img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif
>Yup, we're aware of the lack of amateur sites in the gold ratings, and
>the whole review database is slightly..uhm.. unbalanced, we're trying
>to sort out something... I'm sure you will get your gold rating from us
>in the future. img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif
Well, I look forward to that!
Hate to harp on it, but I had a look through the top 18 sites (gold rated), and they do seem to have a lot in common. Mostly, no _soul_. They have the slick feel of money-making exercises, not run by people who care about the content or their customers. There are a few exceptions, but not many.
I reckon that counts for a lot, and at least warrants a mention in your review of my site (as well as others - simonscans for example). Most of my customers count the time and effort I put into the site - making it personal, replying to ppl's posts on the boards personally, etc - adds a lot of value to the site.
People love the idea of being able to hear stories about shoots and models, being able to suggest poses, shoot ideas, video ideas. Tried asking Suze Randall, SJH, et al, about their work practises? From what I hear, you'd be lucky to receive a response from a lackey about an incorrect denied access error, let alone a discussion of artistic merit - and let alone offer a suggestion for a _pose_.
Sure, the fact I make time to spend on that does not make my site "better", but I think that, in combination with other attribs, it's worth something.
Of course, of the 18 sites, 12 of them deal with pro models mostly or only, and they pretty much all have models who are glitzy, heaps of makeups, high heels, oil, fake tits, big hair, high heels. If you prefer that kinda look, that's cool (tho I personally cannot STAND it, which is why I started my own site), but if your reviews REALLY are as unbiased as you claim them to be on your front page, this "gold" list might warrant some changing (yes, as you say, you're working on it!).
>The sites that have the gold now got heaps of
>exclusive, quality content, hours & hours of video, etc. Most of them
>cost alot more than your $15 for a month though. Will see what we can
>come up with here.
Now, obviously I am biased, but I feel duty-bound to point out that we have several hours of video on the site (presented as two to five short clips of 30 models), content that you agree is "quality" (and really, _is_), and is pretty much 100% exclusive (unlike a lot of the current "gold" rated sites) - and there is heaps of it.
Another thing that bugs me - perhaps it should not, but... - is how plenty of those sites get the same models back to do the same kinda shoots over and over and over again (not to mention a pet hate of mine, sites devoted to one model! yuk!). Come ON! ANYONE can get the same damn models back to do the same stuff over and over - especially if they are pro models. That's boring and easy and makes for horribly predictable content.
I work my GUTS out to get new models every single day, and don't get a lot of credit for it from review sites (nor do any sites that work hard at creating original content) - But ppl really appreciate it (well, they seem to, from the e's I get). Plenty of clever models hit every shooter on the west and east coasts - it's not coincidence that the same models show up in each of the mags AND the websites within months of eachother. You give a site "gold" for that?
Your "original" rating applies here somewhat, but I suggest you have 10 points of that for if the models are really _original_, unseen before (which is what most ppl want to see, unless the goal of the site is to cater to porn "stars"), and 10 points for assessing if the work is actually _exclusive_ to the site in question.
I dunno. I agree - it's hard to get a system in place with one person doing the reviews. With more people, it becomes much harder. FWIW, I reckon your sites does it a helluva lot better than JanesGuide (your only real competition) - more reliably, more comprehensive. The ppl at JG are obviously sick of it all, they do things by rote now. I hope that when you get that jaded, you move on to a new career, not act interested and do a bad job!
Ok, so I have given you a piece of my mind, as my gamma (bless 'er) used to say. I hope I have not offended you, or pissed you off. I think your site is great, and the work you do, excellent.
Look forward to hearing from you soon!
Abby
www.abbywinters.com
Comment