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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[DMBFan23]

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

[ 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

[kyro]

2 and 3 are really the same thing.

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[DMBFan23]

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

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

[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.

[JordanIB]

I'm shocked this was not the first response:

This thread is useless without pics!!!