What? WHAT?!? Only 77 of 100?? I think the guy rating Danielle's site must have a serious problem.
His best rated single girl site has "Site design is plain" as a con, yet has received 9/10 points for design and navigation - Uh?
He is complaining that Danielle's site has "no browsing features." What's that supposed to mean? With the (imho great) design used for Danielle's site, no fancy search engine or flippy slideshow is needed. (I guess that's what he was searching for - and missing.)
Yes, Danielle's site didn't have as much content as some of the other sites. (The rating was posted about 5 months after the Premium Area launch.) In hours viewing time I think Danielle's site may have closed the gap in the mean time.
Without the early videos and photos "inherited" from FTV Girls and Lia19.com he would have complained even more.
The non-exclusive content can't be more than these. Or he is reffering to the affiliate sites, which ought to bring people to Danielle's site. (I think there are quite a lot of them out there.)
Anyway, my feeling is, he's like test driving a sports car - and complaining about the missing loading platform and hard suspension setting. Not very usefull.
Now I know one rating site I'm
not going to rely on.
