|
Content
|
| Quality : |
18.0 / 20 |
| Quantity : |
14.0 / 15 |
| Entertain : |
14.0 / 15 |
| Updates : |
9.0 / 10 |
| Exclusive : |
5.0 / 05 |
| Download : |
3.0 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
63.0 / 70 |
| Navigation |
| Easy : |
6.5 / 10 |
| Features : |
2.5 / 05 |
| Design : |
2.5 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
11.5 / 20 |
| Other |
| Originality : |
2.5 / 05 |
| Hard Facts : |
3.0 / 05 |
| sub-total : |
5.5 / 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. High quality images.
2. Large amount of content.
1. Messy feel to the site desgin.
"These aren't your average 'starving students'..." |
|
|
These aren't your average 'starving students', nope, these girls are young college sluts who will do whatever it takes for a little extra cash, or so is the premise of the website SoCalCoeds.com, where "dirty college girls from So Cal show their pussies for a couple hundred dollars". All right, so another reality-like amateur site where naughty girls get down and dirty in front of the camera for the quick fix of some big numbers on a bill. Updated daily, Monday through Friday, SoCalCoeds.com claims to take great pride in taking care of its members, so I guess that's what we're here to find out.
So far, I'm not sure I like the layout or design of the website, it feels somewhat...I don't know, messy? Maybe first impressions won't hold truth here, but I'm jumping in a little weary anyway. One thing's for sure, they don't mess around. Already on the main page you are bombarded with content options: Last Week's & This Week's Updates; New Photos; Recent Hardcore; Recent Videos; Most Popular Models, as well as the ability to View Girls by Categories (Busty Models, Teens of Color, Girl-Girl, Hardcore, Video Catalog; Photo Catalog) or by name in alphabetical order. As of this review (10/29/03), there are close to 90 different girls to chose from, all very amateur and distinct in their own way, none of which are any where close to being Playboy material, though. But of course, they are amateur chicks just trying to get though college, not a career in modeling, right;)? It's a shot in the dark if you try and search by name, so I suggest you start with a category of your liking; there the girls are listed along with an image. One thing that's really cool is if you browse by bust. Instead of showing a girls face showing a glimpse of her busty parts, SoCalCoeds places a boobs only image, so you truly are browsing by bust-very clever! In any case, once you get a couple of names that stick with you, browsing by model gives you the chance to see all of the content for each girl.
One thing that's apparent, and I tried to stress this before, is that there's not a lot of uniformity here. I mean, each girl opens up to display all of her content, starting with MPEG's, then videos, moving on to softcore pictures, and then hardcore. And while having all content easily accessible in one place is nice, most videos and images can be viewed in high or low quality, but not all. As well, although all image sets have the option to download into a zip file, only some have the option to download them in both the large and small image sizes. But I digress, most large images are about 960x1440, nice and large (full screen) and although amateur in style, offer very nice quality. Small images are much smaller, 480x720, but offer the same good quality. Some photo sets that did not have a size viewing option ended up having images as large as 1360x2048 and as small as 480x720. All this aside, I really enjoyed a lot of these images, they're fun, they're flirty, and you can really tell that the girl is enjoying herself.
On to the good stuff, if you want to see girls getting fucked (who doesn't), playing with themselves, taking a shower, and just overall being slutty, then you'll enjoy the videos here. And like I said earlier, they are separated by MPEG's and other videos. MPEG's open using QuickTime, and are just average in size and quality (there are no options for download with these). Other videos, however, most of the time does have an option of high or low quality downloads and opens using Windows Media. "Low Quality" videos are laughable (29k), so small and definitely not worth it even if you are using a dinosaur of a computer (shame on you). Even the "High Quality" videos only play at 242k, the sound is just okay, somewhat choppy, though the video quality is actually good. What's nice here is that all the girls have videos, or at least it appears that way. If you're in for a hot girl with perfect breasts and a good amount of content, check out Autumn, she's a real treat!
I like the quality of the photos and the action in the videos, though I would like to see the videos at even higher quality and I don't believe for one second that very many of these girls are actual college coeds. Instead this is a site with a good idea for archiving quality amateur pictures, but only mediocre in their execution of doing so. There is a good amount of content here and it's not too painstakingly difficult to get around to see it, so I guess I can't complain too much about the $24.95 monthly fee:).
| 1st Follow-Up Review |
Review: 07-08-04 |
While not much looks new in the tour, So Cal Coeds has been busy updating the member’s area this past 8 months or so with image galleries up to almost 450+ galleries total and the video count up to 114+. That's a lot of new content to look through and unfortunately, due to a slight re-design of the members area, browsing it has gotten a little more complicated as there are no longer individual categories separating the content. That being said, I already didn't really like the site design the first time around and now they've made it even more awkward. You're only option for browsing content now is by model, which are listed in alphabetical order on the main member’s page.
On a more positive note, So Cal Coeds has also upped the amount of sites that you get access to by joining from 5 to 7, giving members access to an even larger amount of bonus sites on top of their own already growing archive of content. This site is a good one, but it's still in need of a little more work overall.
Score decreased from 81.7 to 81.5.
|
