This topic contains 4 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
I find my own preferences match the rating scores well. If a set scores really well I almost always like it, if it scores poorly then I almost always dislike it. It’s got to the stage where I can look at a new set and accurately estimate how it will rate because I think a lot of people share my preferences.
What I’d like to see is the site putting up more of the types of sets that rate well and considerably fewer of the types that rate poorly. I could go on and list the qualities that high rating sets have but I think they are obvious if you look at the highest rating sets.
Sorry, that was meant to be a post in the what you liked in 2008 thread.
HI,
There are always a few things to bear in mind looking at the set ratings.
The main one is that only about 5% of the site membership ever vote, and I have think it is usually the same 5% or maybe 10% who vote on all the sets. So it would be dangerous for us to slavishly follow what the votes indicate, especially as the only other objective means of looking at set popularity, the download stats, do not always tell the same story as the ratings.
So we certainly pay attention to the ratings, but unless we somehow make it mandatory for everyone to vote on every set, we have to take them with an open mind.
Personally what I find interesting is sets with polarized responses. A set which gets lots of 3* ratings and not many 5* or 1* ratings is inoffensive but a bit bland, but one where everyone votes either 5* or 1* means the set has provoked a real reaction 🙂
It is also not as easy as you might think to disentangle why people rate sets the way they do. One of our minor projects this year is to do some more in-depth statistical analysis to see whether our “hunches” about what makes a set well rated (eg nude-in-metal sets usually do well) actually do pan out if you separate the variables properly.
So… it would actually be very interesting if you could explain a little bit about what features make you rate a set highly! It may seem obvious, but it really isn’t so obvious to us when we start looking more closely 🙁
Cheers, Hywel.
It wouldn’t matter if it were only 5 or 10% provided it was representative sample. Whoever is voting though I usually find myself agreeing with them.
My impression, which I will try and disentangle from my own preferences, is that sets that have these factors are likely to score well:
– nakedness of the model is probably the single highest factor, fully clothed sets rarely seem to do well
– youth and beauty/sexual attractiveness of the model
– metal bondage and cages generally seem to score highly, rope or other bonds less so
– the genuineness of the model’s expressions and range of posing – i.e. it looks “real” and not too much like “model posing”
– the degree of restraint – sets that only have the model in a sort of nominal bondage (or bondage that is obviously easily escapable) even if it fits the story don’t seem to do so well
– does the set tell an interesting story that develops over the set rather than just a single pose photographed from different angles?
– the originality of the bondage/situation, new and interesting forms of restraint seem to do well too
I find that I often like things a little bit more graphic. Not every set, mind you, but on occasion it is nice to let the imagination rest and feast your eyes on the natural beauty that is fully exposed and available for viewing. Sometimes these sets foster the keenest imaginational response…
Jim
The forum ‘General Chat’ is closed to new topics and replies.