The rating system

[JihadOnTheRiver]

The way people on this site rate women is pretty close to retarded. Either people are entirely too picky (those people strike me as fat, pasty computer nerds that haven't gotten puss in months), or they are entirely too liberal. You will see a lot of comments like "OMFG she's totally hot I would eat the corn..." and in the same thread "Holy crap you guys are so desperate she's only a 3; great boobs, nice ass, pretty face, but her ankles are too big."

My friends and I have solved this problem. We have what we think to be a univerally appropriate 1-10 rating system. In many blind tests of the system, when shown the same girl, her point spread is no more than .5 between 5 or so people.

The key to the system is understanding that God made pretty people, and God made ugly people. You must create an appropriate image in your head of the AVERAGE GIRL. The rating system is the classic Bell Curve type.

That is to say, it is an exceptionally good day if you saw a girl that was >8, but you had a traumatic experience if you saw a <2. An 8 would be what most people would refer to as universally attractive. A 9 could potentially stop your heart. A 10 is perfect in every possible way, therefor, DOES NOT EXIST , nor does a 0. A 1-2 would probably be akin to what would happen if Janet Reno started doing crack, stopped showering, and got menopause-acne. Understand, a 2 should be rightly equivalent to an 8, "remarkably off the average".

Once you understand that the VAST majority of women are 4-6 (average), you stop hearing people saying "OMFG I SAW THIS CHICK TODAY SHE WAS A STRAIGHT 10 EASY!" My friends and I utilize the .5, and sometimes go into more definition (i.e. 6.8). But the important part is that when one of us says "I met a 7.5 today," we're all on the same page.

I feel it would do OOT a lot of good to reign in the outlandish ratings that currently are given out here.

Thoughts?

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
The way people on this site rate women is pretty close to retarded. Either people are entirely too picky (those people strike me as fat, pasty computer nerds that haven't gotten puss in months), or they are entirely too liberal. You will see a lot of comments like "OMFG she's totally hot I would eat the corn..." and in the same thread "Holy crap you guys are so desperate she's only a 3; great boobs, nice ass, pretty face, but her ankles are too big."

My friends and I have solved this problem. We have what we think to be a univerally appropriate 1-10 rating system. In many blind tests of the system, when shown the same girl, her point spread is no more than .5 between 5 or so people.

The key to the system is understanding that God made pretty people, and God made ugly people. You must create an appropriate image in your head of the AVERAGE GIRL. The rating system is the classic Bell Curve type.

That is to say, it is an exceptionally good day if you saw a girl that was >8, but you had a traumatic experience if you saw a <2. An 8 would be what most people would refer to as universally attractive. A 9 could potentially stop your heart. A 10 is perfect in every possible way, therefor, DOES NOT EXIST , nor does a 0. A 1-2 would probably be akin to what would happen if Janet Reno started doing crack, stopped showering, and got menopause-acne. Understand, a 2 should be rightly equivalent to an 8, "remarkably off the average".

Once you understand that the VAST majority of women are 4-6 (average), you stop hearing people saying "OMFG I SAW THIS CHICK TODAY SHE WAS A STRAIGHT 10 EASY!" My friends and I utilize the .5, and sometimes go into more definition (i.e. 6.8). But the important part is that when one of us says "I met a 7.5 today," we're all on the same page.

I feel it would do OOT a lot of good to reign in the outlandish ratings that currently are given out here.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have a thought. Why spend all this effort on rating women you're probably too scared to go up and talk to?

This is just wasted energy, Man. Who cares if you saw a 7.5 or an 8? Did you meet her? Get her number? That's what's important. This rating of women like it's some amazingly complex system is for morans.

And I say this in a "I'm just gonna be a dik this one time" voice. So don't take me seriously. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MrWookie47]

Eh, I think that's a lot of what people claim their rating system is. Unfortunately, all you have to do is stroll around any given Wal-Mart for a half hour, and that'll really force you to readjust your definition of what "average" really is. THAT's the thing that's really throwing off the ratings, methinks.

I also think that the three point system (hit it, hit it drunk, won't hit it) has plenty of merit.

[DMBFan23]

1 - wouldn't do her
2 - do her after some shots
3 - I'd hit it

[JordanIB]

I'm shocked this was not the first response:

This thread is useless without pics!!!

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked this was not the first response:

This thread is useless without pics!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

seconded. If he had a pic to demonstrate each number on the scale it would actually be a great thread.

[ QUOTE ]
1 - wouldn't do her
2 - do her after some shots
3 - I'd hit it

[/ QUOTE ]

Revised to:

1 - wouldnt hit it
2 - would hit it when intoxicated
3 - would hit it, but wouldnt tell anyone
4 - would definitely hit it
5 - would hold her hand in public

There are many factors other than a girl's looks that can contribute to how you rate them. for example: how long it's been since you last got some, quality of photograph, and what she happens to be wearing in the photo. There is a lot of room for variance. I'm not surprised at all that there are many weird rankings on this site.

[kyro]

2 and 3 are really the same thing.

[codewarrior]

Rating women is pretty close to retarded.

Good day.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1 - wouldn't do her
2 - do her after some shots
3 - I'd hit it

[/ QUOTE ]

Revised to:

1 - wouldnt hit it
2 - would hit it when intoxicated
3 - would hit it, but wouldnt tell anyone
4 - would definitely hit it
5 - would hold her hand in public

[/ QUOTE ]

the tucker max scale?

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Revised to:

1 - wouldnt hit it
2 - would hit it when intoxicated
3 - would hit it, but wouldnt tell anyone
4 - would definitely hit it
5 - would hold her hand in public

[/ QUOTE ]
haha. i predict in a year we will have about 4 or 5 more clever and funny revisions and the ratings system will be 1-30. i can't wait /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[DMBFan23]

I predict the next addition is "would eat the ass."

now the question is which two numbers does it fit in between?

[JonPKibble]

I'm surprised nobody has ever brought up the idea of variance in the rating system before.

[Vavavoom]

There is no such thing as a 1 on that system...

A "1" naked, in your bed, wanting to play anal ring toss, befoe riding you silly and willing to keep it a secret from your pals would still get action...

Thus most men would not turn down a "Bunk-Up".....therefore rating is futile.

However, I have yet to sh*g a "1" !!!!

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
I predict the next addition is "would eat the ass."


[/ QUOTE ]
clearly before holding hands.

[CollinEstes]

Is the rating after holding hands something like, "would let her bone me in the ass with a strap on."

How does the rating required to SIIHP compare to the rating required to simply bang her? Higher or lower? or about the same?

in most cases, likely

[WackityWhiz]

http://www.facethejury.com/images/photos/Sw/SweetynCR.jpg3 in my book

http://www.facethejury.com/images/photos/Do/DontYOUweap.jpg2 in my book



http://www.facethejury.com/images/photos/Ra/RainGirl89.jpg1 in my book

-WW

[WackityWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as a 1 on that system...

A "1" naked, in your bed, wanting to play anal ring toss, befoe riding you silly and willing to keep it a secret from your pals would still get action...

Thus most men would not turn down a "Bunk-Up".....therefore rating is futile.

However, I have yet to sh*g a "1" !!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

ones are the most disgusting ugly girls on the planet man... there are no worse.

Nobody should be hitting that, unless they are down there on the scale as well. I'm not the most attractive guy ever, i'm not even in shape... but I would not come close to a 1 with a 10 ft pole.

seriously

[MrWookie47]

Based on that description, your example 1 is nowhere close. I expect serious deformities. I'm talking burn victim, birth defects, etc. All your 1 has is crappy makeup.

[WackityWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on that description, your example 1 is nowhere close. I expect serious deformities. I'm talking burn victim, birth defects, etc. All your 1 has is crappy makeup.

[/ QUOTE ]

it makes her freakin hideous; i mean granted I see the point you are making but I only spent like 3 mins looking for these girls.

It's tough to find the most disgusting ugly girls on the planet, but that one (with that makeup) is damn close. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

-WW

[tonypaladino]

WW,

If that's a 1 what does Janet Reno on crack rate?

I am in favor of the 3 point scale, and I think it should be adopted universially across OOT.

[WackityWhiz]

lol, I'll just stick to posting the hot ones /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Ww

[man]

I can't take the rating system too seriously, because I mean if I saw a 10 I don't know how much of a difference in my life it would make to me if I'd seen a 9. what matters is if you'd get to lay the pipe.

1-5 all make great friends IMO. 6+ I'll hook up with/date. as for drunken hookups I'm usually pretty good with maintaining my standards, but I definately went slum diving on halloween. it's amazing what costumes do for ratings.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

I would say all 3 of those lie somewhere right around 4. One of my main points, that I probably didn't outline very well, is that the 'average' (5.0) is far less attractive than people realize.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on that description, your example 1 is nowhere close. I expect serious deformities. I'm talking burn victim, birth defects, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct

[JihadOnTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
Rating women is pretty close to retarded.

Good day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Consider it more of a classification system if you wish. I consider it very helpful in discussions that my main group of friends are on the same page.

It has nothing to do with personality or fuckability.

[swede123]

OK, let me take a stab at providing pictures corresponding with the various ranks. Obviously personal taste comes into this stuff, and I'm sure some people would shift around 6, 7 and 8 for example. Also, I did not find anyone on dating sites etc. that are even close to qualifying as a 9 or a 10. So for these two I went with two famous people. What do you guys think?

1 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/1.jpg

2 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/2.jpg

3 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/3.jpg

4 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/4.jpg

5 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/5.jpg

6 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/6.jpg

7 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/7.jpg

8 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/8.jpg

9 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/9.jpg

10 http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/jonasola/winnar.jpg

Swede

[TheGame1020]

My god.

[MrWookie47]

1, 2, 9, and 10 are solid. I don't think you have a good 3. The difference between your 2 and your 3 is too big. I'd kick 3, 4 and 5 up a notch each. I think 6 is hotter than either 7 or 8, but you expected to hear that. On the whole, though, this is a good effort.

[0,1]
That's the known universe.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

Nice work Swede. Glad you put the effort. I think, overall, you've skewed the bell curve to the left, which is very common. It took me awhile to get my friends on the same page as me.

Comments:

1 - About right. She's probably a 1.5, maybe 2. The outer limits of the curve is where you get the most variance. Her picture does fit the "remarkably unattractive" tag.

2 - Not a 2. I would refer to her as a rock solid 3. If you saw her walking down the street, she would not induce a comment. You might think, oh man ugly, but not "hey buddy, that [censored] is painful, look at that." Remember |2| = |8|.

3 - This woman is rather average for a 35ish yr. old. She's a 4.5. If she put on 40 lbs, she'd drop to a 3.

4 - To me, this is what the average woman looks like. A 5. Not the women I hang out with, but in a random selection of the population, average.

5 - 5.5

6 - 6

7 - 6

8 - 6.5. She looks naturally pretty, almost beautiful. But not remarkably so.

9 - 8. No way 9 for my scale. Think of the curve man, 9 is tough. This girl can be found in downtown San Diego on a busy night, but I would still thank Allah if I got down with her. "Remarkably attractive."

10 - 9. Maybe 9.5. Like I said, the outer limits get hazy, but there really is no way to say anybody is a 10, because there's always someone that will find something slightly off.

My main point is that the 4-5-6 range is where a ridiculously large % end up. Its considered difficult to get out of there.

Thoughts?

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
1, 2, 9, and 10 are solid. I don't think you have a good 3. The difference between your 2 and your 3 is too big. I'd kick 3, 4 and 5 up a notch each. I think 6 is hotter than either 7 or 8, but you expected to hear that. On the whole, though, this is a good effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis.