OFFICIAL
77.5
pretty good |
|
Content
|
| Quality : |
16.0 / 20 |
| Quantity : |
13.0 / 15 |
| Entertain : |
13.0 / 15 |
| Updates : |
8.0 / 10 |
| Exclusive : |
5.0 / 05 |
| Download : |
2.5 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
57.5 / 70 |
| Navigation |
| Easy : |
7.0 / 10 |
| Features : |
2.5 / 05 |
| Design : |
3.5 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
13.0 / 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. |
|
| Editor: Spencer |
Initial Review: 08-08-06 |
|
1. Updates seem to come pretty often.
2. All exclusive fetish content.
3. Pictures look decent.
1. Video quality needs work.
2. Navigation is a pain.
"Some nice photo content, though the site and videos need a refresher." |
|
|
Another no-brainer here if you ask me! Pantyhose Bang should feature some chicks in pantyhose in all types of hardcore situations. One look at their tour and you'll see that's exactly what they offer here. They've got boy/girl sex, lesbians, solo, toys, and more going on here. They also claim it's all exclusive content which would be a nice bonus. Membership costs are $30 a month, which is a bit high (but that can be the case for this type of site).
The goods:
- All exclusive fetish content. That combination is a golden ticket for porn sites sometimes, as once you find a fetish you like, you probably see the same crap shot 10 years ago over and over again. When a site produces its own content of a certain fetish, it's a gold mine as you finally have new material to check out.
- Updates seem to come pretty often. Their tour claims five updates per week, but they only give the date of the most recent update so it's tough to tell. Thankfully that was two days ago currently, so they seem to be updating pretty often overall I'd say.
- Pictures look decent. They're very clear and colorful, and have that distinctive European look to them. They're also a decent size at almost 1000x700, though I wouldn't mind seeing even larger images available as well.
The bads:
- Navigation is a pain. They break their content up into a ton of useless categories. I'd rather see the main video section, the main photo section, and then an extras section for everything else. Also, browsing galleries isn't easy with just four scenes per page which makes for a lot of clicking around.
- Video quality could be better. They just fall short of what the photo section is offering unfortunately. Today's users demand high-quality video with their broadband connection, and I'd say the average is now in the 640x480 and 1000kbps range which would be miles ahead of where they are now.
Conclusion:
So overall the site is decent, though it's not great or anything. The content is good, the pictures look good, and they seem to be growing. The navigation and video problems do hold them back a bit for now. Thankfully they are fixable, and the site could be better down the road if they can clear those up.
|
