review sites

[basschick]

review sites are pretty well known to send some of the best-selling traffic around. in reality, although this is usually true, sometimes paid reviewers lose track of things, and that can greatly lower sales.

some reviewers write overly optimistic reviews or give high scores for no reason. a friend of mine scores sites with average quality content at 8 or 9 for quality. he was fired by one review site because they got complaints from guys who joined and didn't find really good or excellent quality content.

i also see reviews out there that are non-specific. they real almost like ads. they don't tell us how many, what quality or anything about the layouts or useability of the sites. guys looking for facts aren't very likely to join sites through these reviews and a lot of newer surfers may take a peek but lack confidence to join because they aren't getting the facts.

another thing is content. we're webmasters and reviewers. we've seen pretty much all the content that is out there. i talked to a reviewer writing a review once who said he had seen the content on this site all over the web. turns out it isn't all over the web - he had seen it a couple times and so he assumed all surfers everywhere had seen it, too.

what reviewers forget sometimes is that surfers aren't full time webmasters. they don't shop at the same content place day after day.

another reviewer wrote that a site (that actually had 100% exclusive content) had old stale content. why? because he had seen a couple of the models before and assumed it was the same pics he had seen at a content broker. this sort of thing does no good for the review site or the people who own the paysites. imo it's just as bad to write an over-negative review as an over-positive one.

what makes the traffic on some review sites really good is that the reviews are truly honest and the regulars on those sites can really trust the reviews enough to buy with confidence.

[Lee]

You bring up some really good points actually, i had a reviewer contact me a few days ago telling me that they couldnt review one of our sites because they had seen the content in it 'all over the place' however, upon confirming what i already knew at the time of purchasing the content from the provider... The sets had ONLY been sold 3 times including the purchases that i had made LOL

It turns out, the review had seen the content inside the content providers site, who they happened to have reviewed a couple of days prior to starting the review on my site.

Because of that, in their eyes, they had seen the content 'all over the place' before LOL

The lines between what a webmaster and a surfer want or like (and now a reviewer) have become so blurred that it will only be a matter or time before all sites start looking the same, pretty graphics, flashy graphics, no drm, multiple speeds for videos, multiple zip files for the image and movie content, no watermarks, etc etc

The simple fact of the matter is, we need to be getting out of the mentality that just because you or i think a site has a problem, that doesnt mean that the SURFER thinks the site has a problem and, invairiably, these same sites that we are told by other webmasters and affiliates dont sell, dont retain, etc etc... Actually do.

Will be interesting to see some of our other community members responses to this thread

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

your sites are a good example. each site has its own videos - unlike some bigger programs - and the videos are fairly large and very much within the niche of the site. and gaydemon says the sites are retaining well.

your sites are more correctly niched than lots of sites i've seen and yet a lot of people say they are "template" sites and assume that the content is all the same or is all plugins, even though that is not the case. but imo a reviewer should not assume anything. he or she should go through the site and discover it... sort of let the site content speak for itself, you know?

[gaystoryman]

Well I think a lot of sites that have 'reviews' on them have one added problem that taints the reviews themselves. They are also affiliates of that program and are using the review to add to their income stream.

Brutally honest or sugar coated? Which do you think a site is truly after?

Sure there is a difference between a surfer and a webmaster, but in many senses, the reviews today on many, not all, but many sites are geared towards aiding in the sale of memberships and not in providing a truly honest review to the surfer. That is just business I suppose.

You also have to take the look at how many sites will be willing to pony up free admission without having some sense that they won't be totally trashed. Again its business.

Now as to the reviewer. Keep in mind they are working for someone, and like any employee are obligated to provide what the employer wishes. If they want it glossed over, want it as more of an ad to sell, then that is what you provide or you go looking for employment elsewhere. It is no different than if you hired a guy to market your site, and he told your customers that brand x was better. How long would you employ him?

It is an interesting blend of ethics too. Sometimes it can be most upsetting, but reality is simply that many do what they have to in order to keep the paycheques coming.

[basschick]

i am a professional site reviewer and i've written for over 30 review sites. in that time, only 2 sites have asked me to lie or greatly exaggerate.

when i write a review, i tend to focus strongly on the good AND the bad points, but also on the facts. if a site has 320x240 videos streaming at a sad 256k, i will state that. i tell the size and quality of pics, videos, number of pic and video sets - and those are hard cold facts. if a site has wonderful models but terrible video quality, my review will tell both those facts.

and i'm in demand - almost ridiculously. i am turning down 3 - 5 regular review jobs per week some weeks. most of the site owners i talk to prefer the more honest reviews as opposed to the more sales-pitch oriented reviews a lot of writers write for them. go figure!

[Xstr8guy]

Ian brings up some very interesting points. I can't think of a greater conflict of interest than a review site that only reviews sites that they are an affilite of. I suppose you could maintain an image of impartiality by occassionally trashing a site.

[basschick]

yeah, but that's why most review sites hire reviewers. i make no more - or less - money whether the review site makes sales or not. and the truth is even sites with negative reviews get traffic and sales. so why compromise your honesty - and your ability to hold onto bookmarkers - when you make sales either way?

i worked with a program with sites that one review site said had lackluster content, girls who had been seen all over the net and there were other things they didn't like. their traffic converted between 1:64 and 1:112, and they made sales every single day. so why lie?

Ian brings up some very interesting points. I can't think of a greater conflict of interest than a review site that only reviews sites that they are an affilite of. I suppose you could maintain an image of impartiality by occassionally trashing a site.

[Xstr8guy]

i worked with a program with sites that one review site said had lackluster content, girls who had been seen all over the net and there were other things they didn't like. their traffic converted between 1:64 and 1:112, and they made sales every single day. so why lie?

Lol, how the heck is that possible? Negative reviews = Postive sales... crazy!