CHANGE THE RATING SYSTEM (looksmax is becoming /r/rateme)

Status
Not open for further replies.
tincelw

tincelw

you cant have BDD if you are subhuman
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
839
this place is turning into Reddit and almost no one has any clue on how to rate.

example: https://looksmax.me/threads/rate-me-and-what-haircut-should-i-get.19403/#post-372822
this guy got ratings of (2)6.5 , 5.5 , and (2) 4. How can this be an objective rating if the standard deviation is 1? psl 6.5 is almost model tier and he is getting rated that

example 2:https://looksmax.me/threads/rate-me.19436/
this guy got only 3. bottom 5%, how can some people be rated so harshly while get rated highly

example 3: https://looksmax.me/threads/17-62-rate-me-body-face.17039/#post-326758 (me)
my ratings ranged from 6.5-7 (6people gave) and 5-5.5 (3people gave). In my opinion their should not be so much deviation, even after posting I dont know If i am chad or mid tier normie.

looks theory is centered around the theory that looks are objective, but the ratings here have to much deviation to be considered objective. The problem is that even though people have similar views, when converting that into a numerical rating it gets distorted. Psl raters will know that 5.5 is top 85% , while someone else might give 7.5 while still meaning top 85%

Solution: use objective rating scale like this (copied from lookism)
[Image: figure6-3.gif]

here μ is the average, in our case the classic 5, and σ is 1, every point of attractiveness away from average. (10s don't exist according to PSL). So imagine the area under the graph like this:

https://lookism.net/Thread-Theory-What-PSL-ratings-means-in-real-life-Connection-to-percentiles

This way ratings can be more accurate and everyone can be objectively rated. lets not become /r/rateme
 
Alexanderr

Alexanderr

Absent
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
2,590
not open for further replies
 
Jaded

Jaded

Zephir
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,229
Men don’t know how to rate other men, so ratings will always be inaccurate even if rating system is changed.
 
tincelw

tincelw

you cant have BDD if you are subhuman
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
839
Men don’t know how to rate other men, so ratings will always be inaccurate even if rating system is changed.
the problem is that we dont have a guide for what numbers mean. 2 people might agree that an individual is chadlite (top 90%) and one will rate 5.75 while the other gives 7. so it is hard to understand what people mean with their ratings.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

There's no gym for my squandered youth.
Joined
Sep 10, 2018
Messages
809
Maybe looks theory isn't objective? If it were objective, you wouldn't need multiple opinions. You could just rate it yourself based on the objective criteria.
 
tincelw

tincelw

you cant have BDD if you are subhuman
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
839
Maybe looks theory isn't objective? If it were objective, you wouldn't need multiple opinions. You could just rate it yourself based on the objective criteria.
to some extent it is subjective ±10%, I definitely agree that someone who is objectively average can be seen by someone as 60% percentile or 40% (obviously if you are dating someone or personality can have a bigger deviation than that)

The only reason we need multiple ratings is because the inaccuracy of rating and some people cant analyse that well, also to identify outliers and "false ratings"

The reason why we cant assess ourselves properly is because of bias and other factors such as self esteem, positive reinforcement, or fixations on certain positive negative traits.
 
Tiddlywink

Tiddlywink

Apprentice
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
292
Even using a bell curve instead of a linear scale for attractiveness wouldn't make it "objective". You're still subjectively deciding what looks good. Only now you're attributing commonality to it.

Coming up with an entirely objective attractiveness rating system would be somewhat difficult and complex. You'd need to have a point system for every facial feature and ratio ranging from -5 to 5 where 1 - 5 is an increase in attractiveness and -1 - -5 is a noticeable flaw.

After that, you'd need a separate rating for the importance of each feature and ratio when deciding your overall attractiveness. For example, having -5 eyes (hideous protruding bug eyes with one lazy eye) would completely ruin you even if you got a 5 in everything else.
 
Last edited:
tincelw

tincelw

you cant have BDD if you are subhuman
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
839
Even using a bell curve instead of a linear scale for attractiveness wouldn't make it "objective". You're still subjectively deciding what looks good. Only now you're attributing commonality to it.

Coming up with an entirely objective attractiveness rating system would be somewhat difficult and complex. You'd need to have a point system for every facial feature and ratio ranging from -5 to 5 where 1 - 5 is an increase in attractiveness and -1 - -5 is a noticeable flaw.

After that, you'd need a separate rating for the importance of each feature and ratio when deciding your overall attractiveness. For example, having -5 eyes (hideous protruding bug eyes with one lazy eye) would completely ruin you even if you got a 5 in everything else.
I am not recommending that we come up with an entirely new objective rating system because that is impossible, features on their own would be hard enough but since facial harmony plays a role that would be impossible.



I am only suggesting that we agree on how we quantify our qualitative thoughts. Because without any information a number tells us very little. If I told you 6/10 , you wouldnt know if that means top 5% (using psl with 4 as avg) , top 20% (using psl with 5 as average) , or just average , or slightly above. Without a definitive scale these numbers are to ambiguous. If everyone can agree that 5 is used as average and we use the standard bell cure model we will surely see that most of the ratings will be within .5 of each other.
 
Sergeant

Sergeant

Admin
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
266
This way ratings can be more accurate and everyone can be objectively rated. lets not become /r/rateme
I can't make people rate more accurately, but what you say makes sense.
I am not recommending that we come up with an entirely new objective rating system because that is impossible, features on their own would be hard enough but since facial harmony plays a role that would be impossible.
If you can write / make a chart explaining in detail how to properly rate, I'll add it to the sticky.
I'll close the thread so it's not derailed, PM me if you have questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
dogtown Feedback 10
ElliotRodgerJr Feedback 15

Similar threads


Top