New RabbitsReviews scoring criteria, rating paysites in the age of tubes

« Sexy Softcore Videos |Main| This Week in Dicks: XXX-Factor - Not So Tiny Pin Dick - Officer Dildo »

September 27, 2011

When I first launched Rabbit's Reviews in 2003, it was to help surfers make their way through the seemingly endless number of porn sites out there and separate those that offered a high-quality product from those that were simply out to take your money. It's a service that our team of 20 is proud to provide and the popularity of our site, along with the awards we've won, tells us that it's a service you appreciate as well.

Since then, we've all become more accustomed to shopping online and using the Internet and, as such, we've become more discerning. And with changes taking hold in the industry, the standards for what makes a high-quality site have changed considerably. Tube sites, with their enormous amounts of free content and easy-to-use interfaces, dominate the landscape. Paysites today must be at the cutting edge and more competitive to be able to charge consumers and survive in the long run. As such, we here at Rabbit's decided that it was time to change how we review sites.

This decision is not something that came lightly. It has been in development for many months, with a lot of internal discussions with the hope of covering everything that is absolutely essential. We've also taken feedback from webmasters and from you, our readers, in order to accurately reflect what it is that paying customers want from their porn sites.

The biggest changes include a greater emphasis on content quality and content amount. For example, the percentage of sites a few years ago that provided 2,000kbps as a video quality was somewhat small. Now, it has become standard. Tube sites can easily trump paysites on content amounts, but their content is rarely exclusive (when it is not pirated) and is often of low quality. This is where paysites can differentiate themselves and justify charging a membership fee. And while tube sites have decimated this industry, reducing margins and forcing many paysites out of business, they've also forced the remaining ones to innovate and excel.

Along with the tubes, we're seeing paysites that produce content that is higher in quality (Reality Kings), higher in production values (Brazzers) and full of unique ideas (Dancing Bear, Dare Dorm) and unique user experiences (VideoBox). On many paysites, the dollar the user pays today delivers a lot more value than it did just a few years ago. And that, in our view, is good.

A common complaint from webmasters was that our old Other criterion was too vague and too high in points (20 points). So we created a new Other criterion (10 points) that is essentially a score based on the reviewer's discretion. We also added a Features criterion (5 points) of functionalities important for any content collection. Design and Navigation criteria have been merged into one called Usability. We found there was too much overlap between the two and we could make better use of the 10 points elsewhere.

Later today, these new score changes will go live on RabbitsReviews. So you will notice that the score for an "average" site will decrease slightly from what it used to be under the previous criteria. The fact remains that while the ceiling has risen for what makes a truly great site, not everyone is caught up. This is certainly true for new sites or producers who don't have the means to provide thousands of videos.

Our in-depth writing, along with the statistical breakdown, will continue to paint a fair and complete portrait of what you will find on a site. One certainty you can take away from this new criteria is that any of the top 20 sites listed, whether it's overall or within their category, are some of the very best the Web has to offer.

The next couple of months will be a critical juncture for these new changes and your feedback will be more important than ever. Please send us your thoughts, good and bad, by email, Twitter or any of the options provided on our customer service bar. Our goal, as always, is to provide you with accurate, detailed information so that you can make the most informed purchase with your porn dollars. Thank you for your loyalty.

Posted by rabbit at September 27, 2011 8:24 PM

Email

Comments

I think it's great that you have detailed information about each site, including payment processors but wish you had a category that rated payment processors, examining fraudulent charges, spam, and overall security issues.
I often pass on sites that have less reputable payment processors. I prefer CCBill but even they don't protect me from spam and even fraud. Once after I signed up for a few Euro sites through CCBill I was hit with a fraudulent charge from a phony UK processor and lots of spam from european and russian domains.
One of my first questions about a site is not how good it is but how SAFE it is. It would be great if consumers could rate processors and site security based on their experiences.
I'm safe as long as I stick with Met-Art, Nubiles and the better sites that use CCBill. But when I get off the beaten track and subscribe to foreign photograhy sites - especially in Europe or Russia, I discover fraud.
One case, Lafincs.com had CCBill in common among the victims. Another time it was OPMDirect. Both claimed I had subscribed to a non-existent adult site, both were phony processors with shell sites. I suspected domai.com and lgsmodels.com. I can't rule out smaller sites like prettynudes (sk)
I also think some sites are terribly spammy. Twistys, YounglegalPorn (Young Porn) to name a couple. I would give YP a 95 for content and a 10 for trustworthiness.
Customer Service is a big consideration too. If I have to call to cancel (Playboy) I won't join again. Lack of true updates - when sites like Ron Harris stop and others like Paul Markham recycle old material, that should be a factor in rating too.
I think you are the best adult site reviewer on the net

Posted by: Volta at October 1, 2011 4:50 PM

^Agree with the above statement, but not mentioning any specific sites.

Posted by: Mark at November 3, 2011 6:53 AM

I would also appreciate if included in the review would be a warning on the download speeds. To be very specific, VideoBox is an incredible site, I have been a member on several occasions over the years, but the download speed over the past few years has been pathetic, and I have a high speed internet connection. In addition to VideoBox, there are several other sites that have incredible content, yet the download speeds make the customer experience less than pleasurable.
I tend to read the reviews of other posters as well as those of Rabbit, and I am starting to give the opinions of the other posters more credence than Rabbit, simply based on the fact that they mention this specific problem which Rabbit seems to ignore.
As this site carriers so much weight, a review with a lower score due to download speed would hopefully make the sites address the problem, which up to now they have failed to do, as many do not pay attention to customer feedback.

Posted by: Rob at December 3, 2011 7:45 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?