OFFICIAL
78.5
pretty good |
|
Content
|
| Quality : |
17.0 / 20 |
| Quantity : |
12.5 / 15 |
| Entertain : |
13.0 / 15 |
| Updates : |
7.0 / 10 |
| Exclusive : |
5.0 / 05 |
| Download : |
3.0 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
57.5 / 70 |
| Navigation |
| Easy : |
7.5 / 10 |
| Features : |
2.5 / 05 |
| Design : |
4.0 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
14.0 / 20 |
| Other |
| Originality : |
4.0 / 05 |
| Hard Facts : |
3.0 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
7.0 / 10 |
Scoring Criteria New
New Update!
As of Aug 15th, 07, price of a site is no longer factored into the overall score/rank. |
|
|
1. All exclusive handjob content.
2. Videos look decent.
3. Updates are coming!
1. Expensive.
2. Only four scenes per page.
3. Updates aren't dated.
"An okay handjob site here that gets the job done (ha!), but wasn't quite awesome yet." |
|
|
While I was happy to see that Mano Job had nothing to do with men giving men handjobs, I was a little surprised to see that it wasn't a Latina-oriented site. Mano means hand in Spanish, so I knew right away we'd have some handjob action here, but there's just a bunch of white girls on their tour. The $30 price tag also hit me a little bit as that's a pretty expensive monthly fee. Hopefully they can hook us up with some quality content once inside.
The goods:
- All exclusive handjob content. This may be a given to most people, but it deserves mention that it looks like all of their content is exclusive. Add to the fact that their providing some niche material and it makes it all the better.
- Videos look decent. They actually look better to me than their specs would let on, but even the specs are decent. Thank god these videos look good as there's not a whole lot helping this site stand out much, so the good-looking videos definitely help.
- Updates do seem to come. While they don't date them at all, it looks like they do actually update weekly as they advertise which is a good thing. The site isn't small by any means, but it's not a huge site either, so regular updates should help.
The bads:
- Expensive. $30 a month is just a lot for any site out there, especially one that doesn't really stand out to me much as an awesome site or anything. I'd feel much better if this was down in the $20 range, but with the cost being so high, the value score will take a bit of a hit.
- Only four scenes listed per page. This makes browsing around take a little longer than it needs to. Thankfully they give you numbered page links to jump around quicker, but when you're looking for that perfect girl, it just takes a little too much clicking. If their model's index had pictures instead of just being a dropdown box (that isn't even in alphabetical order), that would have helped too.
- Updates aren't dated. We do our own content counts for our stats as best we can, and they now have two more scenes than they did two weeks ago which is good to see. However, a new member may not know this, and dates on the scenes (or an update log) would help let people know that the site is still alive and well.
Conclusion:
This seems to be a pretty standard porn site for today's world. They offer a decent amount of content that's in a niche and all exclusive. They charge a bit much, and the site itself isn't anything spectacular, but at least they give you something for your money that's worthwhile. A few ideas to help them stand out a bit more would be a lower price, higher-quality videos (high-def?), or just a ton more content. For now, Mano Job is fine, but nothing mind-blowing.
| 1st Follow-Up Review |
Review: 09-11-07 |
There's been some decent growth here at Mano Job, which is nice to see since they don't date the updates of course. At least we know new material is coming up now, and we can't complain about that. The quality is still decent, but nothing too out of the ordinary, and the whole theme of the site remains the same. The slow-mo cumshot video you see here and there is an interesting touch. Otherwise, navigation remains a little plain, and I wouldn't mind even higher quality. Update dates would be icing on the cake, but I'm glad to see the good growth they've had.
Score decreased from 79.4 to 78.5.
|
