Get rated by women, not PSL autists

[BlackPillChad]

Real life ratings by women suck because the women in our life lie to spare our feelings. We know that. Even ratings on places like r/RateMe are inflated because women are scared to give below average ratings for fear of making somebody feel bad.

The PSL system at least has the advantage that we are not afraid to call a spade a spade, but we are not women and thus we can only approximate our actual attractiveness based on knowledge of facial aesthetics. We do a pretty good job considering, but it isn't the same as simply seeing with a female gaze. Hence why we see so many threads titled "Eye area is everything", "Good lower third #1 slayer trait", "Muscle is cope without good frame".

Both systems suffer from the fact that people have different ideas about what level of attractiveness corresponds to which numerical rating.

I would be surprised if many members of this forum didn't already know, but there is a website called Photofeeler where you can be anonymously rated by women. The system they use corrects for individuals rating standards, and women don't have to feel bad about rating a guy as not attractive.

Proof women don't lie when anonymous:

Spoiler: Example 1

Spoiler: Example 2

Of course the real use isn't in rating Chads or Truecels, but in rating those in the middle. It's also useful if you don't want to risk doxxing yourself on here. Other uses would be in estimating the potential attractiveness increase of surgeries by comparing morphs to the original, finding out if X thing actually increases attractiveness to women, or finally settling those damn mogging debates (Sean O'pry has ideal male aesthetics, you can't change my mind). Hell, you could even use it for it's original purpose to pick Tinder photos.

This system isn't perfect:
1.) Because it takes either time or money to get rated.
2.) The people on photofeeler might be more or less attractive than the average person.
3.) Failoed or Haloed by angles and lighting. You can take neutral front facing photos to try to negate this.

https://www.photofeeler.com/

 

[MammothActuary]

Real life ratings by women suck because the women in our life lie to spare our feelings. We know that. Even ratings on places like r/RateMe are inflated because women are scared to give below average ratings for fear of making somebody feel bad.

The PSL system at least has the advantage that we are not afraid to call a spade a spade, but we are not women and thus we can only approximate our actual attractiveness based on knowledge of facial aesthetics. We do a pretty good job considering, but it isn't the same as simply seeing with a female gaze. Hence why we see so many threads titled "Eye area is everything", "Good lower third #1 slayer trait", "Muscle is cope without good frame".

Both systems suffer from the fact that people have different ideas about what level of attractiveness corresponds to which numerical rating.

I would be surprised if many members of this forum didn't already know, but there is a website called Photofeeler where you can be anonymously rated by women. The system they use corrects for individuals rating standards, and women don't have to feel bad about rating a guy as not attractive.

Proof women don't lie when anonymous:

Spoiler: Example 1

View attachment 168489

Spoiler: Example 2

View attachment 168491

Of course the real use isn't in rating Chads or Truecels, but in rating those in the middle. It's also useful if you don't want to risk doxxing yourself on here. Other uses would be in estimating the potential attractiveness increase of surgeries by comparing morphs to the original, finding out if X thing actually increases attractiveness to women, or finally settling those damn mogging debates (Sean O'pry has ideal male aesthetics, you can't change my mind). Hell, you could even use it for it's original purpose to pick Tinder photos.

This system isn't perfect:
1.) Because it takes either time or money to get rated.
2.) The people on photofeeler might be more or less attractive than the average person.
3.) Failoed or Haloed by angles and lighting. You can take neutral front facing photos to try to negate this.

https://www.photofeeler.com/

Its very bluepilled. And overrate by a lot

 

[BigChinHispanic]

I actually posted on that site like a month ago, its a nice place to get a somewhat good rating, not dissapointed with the results tbh. got a 6.5 on attractive and a 5.6 on trustworthy . Here i got 5-5.5psl front wise and 6psl side profile. So results are not super different

 

[Rasputin]

Real life ratings by women suck because the women in our life lie to spare our feelings. We know that. Even ratings on places like r/RateMe are inflated because women are scared to give below average ratings for fear of making somebody feel bad.

The PSL system at least has the advantage that we are not afraid to call a spade a spade, but we are not women and thus we can only approximate our actual attractiveness based on knowledge of facial aesthetics. We do a pretty good job considering, but it isn't the same as simply seeing with a female gaze. Hence why we see so many threads titled "Eye area is everything", "Good lower third #1 slayer trait", "Muscle is cope without good frame".

Both systems suffer from the fact that people have different ideas about what level of attractiveness corresponds to which numerical rating.

I would be surprised if many members of this forum didn't already know, but there is a website called Photofeeler where you can be anonymously rated by women. The system they use corrects for individuals rating standards, and women don't have to feel bad about rating a guy as not attractive.

Proof women don't lie when anonymous:

Spoiler: Example 1

View attachment 168489

Spoiler: Example 2

View attachment 168491

Of course the real use isn't in rating Chads or Truecels, but in rating those in the middle. It's also useful if you don't want to risk doxxing yourself on here. Other uses would be in estimating the potential attractiveness increase of surgeries by comparing morphs to the original, finding out if X thing actually increases attractiveness to women, or finally settling those damn mogging debates (Sean O'pry has ideal male aesthetics, you can't change my mind). Hell, you could even use it for it's original purpose to pick Tinder photos.

This system isn't perfect:
1.) Because it takes either time or money to get rated.
2.) The people on photofeeler might be more or less attractive than the average person.
3.) Failoed or Haloed by angles and lighting. You can take neutral front facing photos to try to negate this.

https://www.photofeeler.com/

Awesome share. I’ll have a look over the website. Well I know that PSL is very different from IRL girls rating you. That’s why no matter much if you get rated 4PSL here if in real life girls give you attention, and you still hook up some. If that system is legit then would be awesome for us. The main issue with the PSL autism is that at least 90% of people here don’t have any clue of what is going to ascend you. I would call an almost perfect system if you combine that site with a morph consulting, working with a professional and getting to the realistic point to where you should focus on your looksmax.

 

[FatJattMofo]

photoshiter. shit thread

 

[psycophsez]

This is pretty good, although it completely ignores height/frame/how you look in motion. Still better than nothing,

 

[rockndogs]

Photofeeler = cope and everyone here knows this shitty website bro

 

[BlackPillChad]

Its very bluepilled. And overrate by a lot

Photofeeler's articles are highly bluepilled. But women literally can't overrate on that site because the value of an attractive rating goes down the more the same woman gives it out. So if a woman voted every man as attractive or very attractive, her vote would not count as much as the votes of a woman who almost never gives those ratings out

 

[InZayn]

Joined: Nov 12, 2019

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

grill cant rate. they rate ugly psl men like me 6.5/10. wtf im a manlet dicklet. anyone under 6'3 is instantly sub6. also i have vertical orbital dystopia, retruded orbitals, shit tier gonial angle, non existant ramus, nct. grills dont even acknowledge my flaws because they may either
a) hgave cataracts
b) lying
c) bluepilled
d) didnt properly

GRILL THEORY
female rate ugly men between 5-6.5/10. Any rating of <6.5 by a girl = UGLY and this = sub5 psl. To be GL according to a girl's rating she needs to:
a) i) have sex with you consensually OR ii) she needs to hide behind the garden or tree in your front yard in camouflage and then knocks you out with a stick and fucks you. This will show that she likes you tbh and the degree and effort she is willing to exercise to make love to you.
b) say that you are 8/10 and give you their number

 

[BlackPillChad]

grill cant rate. they rate ugly psl men like me 6.5/10. wtf im a manlet dicklet. anyone under 6'3 is instantly sub6. also i have vertical orbital dystopia, retruded orbitals, shit tier gonial angle, non existant ramus, nct. grills dont even acknowledge my flaws because they may either
a) hgave cataracts
b) lying
c) bluepilled
d) didnt properly

GRILL THEORY
female rate ugly men between 5-6.5/10. Any rating of <6.5 by a girl = UGLY and this = sub5 psl. To be GL according to a girl's rating she needs to:
a) i) have sex with you consensually OR ii) she needs to hide behind the garden or tree in your front yard in the morning in camouflage and then knocks you out with a stick and then rapes you. This will show that she likes you tbh and the degree and effort she is willing to exercise to get you.
b) say that you are 8/10 and give you their number

Did you not see the picture of the truecel and what he got rated? literally no woman rated him as attractive

 

[Amnesia]

that shitty website rates the actual picture attractiveness not the person in it, have an ugly guy smiling wearing decent clothes holding a puppy and he will be rated 10 /10

 

[NormieKilla]

What you failed normies call "PSL autists" are the ones who give an accurate rating of your facial aesthetic value. Don't expect this anywhere else (online or offline).

 

[onnysk]

that shitty website rates the actual picture attractiveness not the person in it, have an ugly guy smiling wearing decent clothes holding a puppy and he will be rated 10 /10

why did you have to crush this guy so hard

 

[LordNorwood]

Its cope. I legit believe women are incapable of being fully honest because they don't fully understand themselves or what they want. They aren't like men, they aren't primarily logical. That said this probably gives a fairly decent approximation but I highly doubt its superior to PSL.

Did you not see the picture of the truecel and what he got rated? literally no woman rated him as attractive

Dude is making a retarded face with a shitty creepy ass selfie lmfao. This comparison is so biased its unreal. Yes he's ugly but putting this pic next to a high quality pic of Chico is not proof of anything.

 

[LooksPSL]

I got rated a 9 in attractiveness. They are BS rates

 

[Hades]

that shitty website rates the actual picture attractiveness not the person in it, have an ugly guy smiling wearing decent clothes holding a puppy and he will be rated 10 /10

Exactly what I was gonna say. I was rated 3/10, yet I have had (seriously not trying to brag here) thousands of matches on dating websites.

 

[LooksPSL]

.

 

[LordNorwood]

I got rated a 9 in attractiveness. They are BS rates

I imagine non-PSL haloes inflate the shit out of the scores

 

[SurgerySoon]

Its very bluepilled. And overrate by a lot

I don't think the raters on Photofeeler are as bluepilled as you think. The few random photos of mine that I've posted on there have all gotten well below-average ratings.

 

[auboutduprecipice]

i got rated badly on there for not smiling but i've still gotten approached irl. online dating and ratings, besides psl and if you're chad, are dependent on the fact that the photo be good and that you smile at least in one pic. i learned this recently

 

[LordNorwood]

Exactly what I was gonna say. I was rated 3/10, yet I have had (seriously not trying to brag here) thousands of matches on dating websites.

And non-PSL related failos deflate the shit out of them

i got rated badly on there for not smiling but i've still gotten approached irl. online dating and ratings, besides psl and if you're chad, are dependent on the fact that the photo be good and that you smile at least in one pic. i learned this recently

I've read a lot of evidence suggesting that your photo quality is king for online sites
Before I get dogpiled no it doesn't make up for being truly ugly

 

[BlackPillChad]

Dude is making a retarded face with a shitty creepy ass selfie lmfao. This comparison is so biased its unreal. Yes he's ugly but putting this pic next to a high quality pic of Chico is not proof of anything.

that shitty website rates the actual picture attractiveness not the person in it, have an ugly guy smiling wearing decent clothes holding a puppy and he will be rated 10 /10

That's a fair criticism, though photography is one aspect of online looks.

Would you be willing to accept either of these photos as evidence that women will not rate unattractive men highly for just photo quality? I think the second one especially would be illustrative of how much photo quality does or doesn't count for.

Spoiler

 

[LordNorwood]

That's a fair criticism, though photography is one aspect of online looks.

Would you be willing to accept either of these photos as evidence that women will not rate unattractive men highly for just photo quality? I think the second one especially would be illustrative of how much photo quality does or doesn't count for.

Spoiler

The second guy is a truecel, he's legit ugly. The mathematical relationship is ambiguous but photo quality probably matters the most in the middle of the bell curve. So for most men, it matters quite a lot. What were the ratings?

 

[LooksPSL]

9/10 checking in

 

[LordNorwood]

View attachment 168607


9/10 checking in

Surprised you got that high considering that photo quality. But you're not unattractive. I think of you as a 6/10

 

[Deleted member 2227]

Surprised you got that high considering that photo quality. But you're not unattractive. I think of you as a 6/10

6/10 = 4/7 PSL

= Avarage

=

Unattractive

 

[LordNorwood]

6/10 = 4/7 PSL

= Avarage

=

Unattractive

It should be 4.8/8 PSL
taking the average as 5/10 and 4/8 respectively he's attractive

 

[Titbot]

Cope .angelrun got rated a 4 on photo shitter

 

[LooksPSL]

Cope .angelrun got rated a 4 on photo shitter

 

[Kinko]

Im 9.4 in that site lol

 

[whitebadboy]

Real life ratings by women suck because the women in our life lie to spare our feelings. We know that. Even ratings on places like r/RateMe are inflated because women are scared to give below average ratings for fear of making somebody feel bad.

The PSL system at least has the advantage that we are not afraid to call a spade a spade, but we are not women and thus we can only approximate our actual attractiveness based on knowledge of facial aesthetics. We do a pretty good job considering, but it isn't the same as simply seeing with a female gaze. Hence why we see so many threads titled "Eye area is everything", "Good lower third #1 slayer trait", "Muscle is cope without good frame".

Both systems suffer from the fact that people have different ideas about what level of attractiveness corresponds to which numerical rating.

I would be surprised if many members of this forum didn't already know, but there is a website called Photofeeler where you can be anonymously rated by women. The system they use corrects for individuals rating standards, and women don't have to feel bad about rating a guy as not attractive.

Proof women don't lie when anonymous:

Spoiler: Example 1

View attachment 168489

Spoiler: Example 2

View attachment 168491

Of course the real use isn't in rating Chads or Truecels, but in rating those in the middle. It's also useful if you don't want to risk doxxing yourself on here. Other uses would be in estimating the potential attractiveness increase of surgeries by comparing morphs to the original, finding out if X thing actually increases attractiveness to women, or finally settling those damn mogging debates (Sean O'pry has ideal male aesthetics, you can't change my mind). Hell, you could even use it for it's original purpose to pick Tinder photos.

This system isn't perfect:
1.) Because it takes either time or money to get rated.
2.) The people on photofeeler might be more or less attractive than the average person.
3.) Failoed or Haloed by angles and lighting. You can take neutral front facing photos to try to negate this.

https://www.photofeeler.com/

HAHA i got a 8.6 on photofeeler with 50 woman votes
JFL if you dont have at least 50 votes

 

[incubus]

>Jul 1, 2019

 

[Julian]

What the fuck I open the website and see this

9/10 bro mogs chico

 

[Usum]

IDGAF about my rating.
I know by experience I could get most women I wanted to.

 

[Lorsss]

Real life ratings by women suck because the women in our life lie to spare our feelings. We know that. Even ratings on places like r/RateMe are inflated because women are scared to give below average ratings for fear of making somebody feel bad.

The PSL system at least has the advantage that we are not afraid to call a spade a spade, but we are not women and thus we can only approximate our actual attractiveness based on knowledge of facial aesthetics. We do a pretty good job considering, but it isn't the same as simply seeing with a female gaze. Hence why we see so many threads titled "Eye area is everything", "Good lower third #1 slayer trait", "Muscle is cope without good frame".

Both systems suffer from the fact that people have different ideas about what level of attractiveness corresponds to which numerical rating.

I would be surprised if many members of this forum didn't already know, but there is a website called Photofeeler where you can be anonymously rated by women. The system they use corrects for individuals rating standards, and women don't have to feel bad about rating a guy as not attractive.

Proof women don't lie when anonymous:

Spoiler: Example 1

View attachment 168489

Spoiler: Example 2

View attachment 168491

Of course the real use isn't in rating Chads or Truecels, but in rating those in the middle. It's also useful if you don't want to risk doxxing yourself on here. Other uses would be in estimating the potential attractiveness increase of surgeries by comparing morphs to the original, finding out if X thing actually increases attractiveness to women, or finally settling those damn mogging debates (Sean O'pry has ideal male aesthetics, you can't change my mind). Hell, you could even use it for it's original purpose to pick Tinder photos.

This system isn't perfect:
1.) Because it takes either time or money to get rated.
2.) The people on photofeeler might be more or less attractive than the average person.
3.) Failoed or Haloed by angles and lighting. You can take neutral front facing photos to try to negate this.

https://www.photofeeler.com/

bump

 

[DarknLost]

View attachment 168607


9/10 checking in

Just have facial hair theory

 

[Anasurimbor]

http://personaldatingassistants.com/tinder-pictures/ Nuff said. Guys testing tinder+ photofeeler matches. check guy with a dog and 99% gook.

conclusion: what women say as feedback, and how they actually behave on the dating apps are 2 very different things.

personally, I think its somewhat legit if you post your pick without smiling and neutral background and use women as your only voters.
for 5+ photos you will get the same average rating.

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

i heard a girl use the world mandible to her friend. i imagined our life together as a blackpilled psl couple with high t aesthetic children who have protruding maxillas and high iqs. I was going to approach her and talk about my vertical orbital dystopia and my retruded maxilla but then she told her friend that she was a medical student (low chance she was a psler)
Thus, i realized she likely did not want to know about my vertical orbital dystopia. so i didnt approach her.

 

[BlackPillChad]

The second guy is a truecel, he's legit ugly. The mathematical relationship is ambiguous but photo quality probably matters the most in the middle of the bell curve. So for most men, it matters quite a lot. What were the ratings?

Spoiler

Not a lot of improvement to the truecel, although some women were willing to rate him as somewhat attractive, which boosted his score.

The man with the dog rated higher than I expected, but he isn't quite as ugly so your theory on photo quality mattering most for the normie tier may be legit. What is more interesting is that even Chico had women express preferences to what he should do differently (for photo quality), but women seemed to univerally agree that dog man has a good photo (comments wise).

 

[LordNorwood]

Spoiler

Not a lot of improvement to the truecel, although some women were willing to rate him as somewhat attractive, which boosted his score.

The man with the dog rated higher than I expected, but he isn't quite as ugly so your theory on photo quality mattering most for the normie tier may be legit. What is more interesting is that even Chico had women express preferences to what he should do differently (for photo quality), but women seemed to univerally agree that dog man has a good photo (comments wise).

For some reason I'm getting Oops! We ran into some problems! when I try and view the pics in your spoiler, would you mind just posting the numbers? Not your fault but I feel like I'm pulling teeth to get these fucking ratings JFL. To suss out what the significance of the scores from your post, yeah my theory would predict a more decent rating for dog-man than he deserves PSL wise and a shit rating for the truecel regardless of his photo quality. Dude could take a pic in an astronaut suit from the moon's surface. Doesn't matter with a PSL that low.

 

[BlackPillChad]

http://personaldatingassistants.com/tinder-pictures/ Nuff said. Guys testing tinder+ photofeeler matches. check guy with a dog and 99% gook.

conclusion: what women say as feedback, and how they actually behave on the dating apps are 2 very different things.

personally, I think its somewhat legit if you post your pick without smiling and neutral background and use women as your only voters.
for 5+ photos you will get the same average rating.

Spoiler

Now that is interesting. I don't think I would have been able to predict that from either PSL ratings or photofeeler ratings. 84 / 250 are the kind of results I would expect male models to get, and that white guy is very average at best. Similarly I think we would have voted the asian as having a slightly higher PSL, but I guess race failo is just that strong.

What could explain the first white guy's match rate vs the (second) dog man's though? Those guys have almost exactly the same PSL (imo) and photofeeler scores, yet got highly different match rates.

Using women as your only voters should go without saying.

For some reason I'm getting Oops! We ran into some problems! when I try and view the pics in your spoiler, would you mind just posting the numbers? Not your fault but I feel like I'm pulling teeth to get these fucking ratings JFL. To suss out what the significance of the scores from your post, yeah my theory would predict a more decent rating for dog-man than he deserves PSL wise and a shit rating for the truecel regardless of his photo quality. Dude could take a pic in an astronaut suit from the moon's surface. Doesn't matter with a PSL that low.

Would've probably helped if I didn't delete the attachments. My assumption was that everyone could see those, defeating the purpose of putting the pics in a spoiler. The photomaxxed truecel got a 3.2, while the dogmaxxed Normie got a 5.7

 

[LordNorwood]

Spoiler

View attachment 168833

Now that is interesting. I don't think I would have been able to predict that from either PSL ratings or photofeeler ratings. 84 / 250 are the kind of results I would expect male models to get, and that white guy is very average at best. Similarly I think we would have voted the asian as having a slightly higher PSL, but I guess race failo is just that strong.

What could explain the first white guy's match rate vs the dog man's though? Those guys have almost exactly the same PSL (imo) and photofeeler scores, yet got highly different match rates.

Using women as your only voters should go without saying.


Would've probably helped if I didn't delete the attachments. My assumption was that everyone could see those, defeating the purpose of putting the pics in a spoiler. The photomaxxed truecel got a 3.2, while the dogmaxxed Normie got a 5.7

Even 3.2 is higher than what the truecel would actually feel like if he tried on dating sites - 0 is a much more realistic answer, while the 3.2 is actually closer to the dogmaxxed normie JFL.
@Anasurimbor 's report is exactly what I expect to. Women are unreliable. They will say one thing and do another and they are incredibly vulnerable to social pressure - whether real or completely imagined/perceived - and of both genders they probably understand themselves even less than men understand them, on average. Go on a redpill site and read some AWALT examples they post (often women writing about themselves). They routinely do and feel things that shock them.

 

[BlackPillChad]

Even 3.2 is higher than what the truecel would actually feel like if he tried on dating sites - 0 is a much more realistic answer, while the 3.2 is actually closer to the dogmaxxed normie JFL.
@Anasurimbor 's report is exactly what I expect to. Women are unreliable. They will say one thing and do another and they are incredibly vulnerable to social pressure - whether real or completely imagined/perceived - and of both genders they probably understand themselves even less than men understand them, on average. Go on a redpill site and read some AWALT examples they post (often women writing about themselves). They routinely do and feel things that shock them.

What do you think explains the difference in match rate between #2 and #4 in @Anasurimbor 's report though? PSL doesn't explain it. Race doesn't explain it. Technical photo quality doesn't explain it. Personality can't explain it.

So what's left? I feel like we are missing something extremely important.

The 9 Tinder Pictures Proven To Work Best For Regular Guys - By Personal Dating Assistants

Tinder pics are important. I know, because I've tested hundreds of them. Learn which Tinder profile photos work best in this ultimate guide.

personaldatingassistants.com

 

[Vitruvian]

If u don't get approached or get iois daily, consider urself below 6psl

 

[LordNorwood]

What do you think explains the difference in match rate between #2 and #4 in @Anasurimbor 's report though? PSL doesn't explain it. Race doesn't explain it. Technical photo quality doesn't explain it. Personality can't explain it.

So what's left? I feel like we are missing something extremely important.

The 9 Tinder Pictures Proven To Work Best For Regular Guys - By Personal Dating Assistants

Tinder pics are important. I know, because I've tested hundreds of them. Learn which Tinder profile photos work best in this ultimate guide.

personaldatingassistants.com

What do you mean specifically here? Between Joseph and Chris?

If u don't get approached or get iois daily, consider urself below 6psl

water, sky, etc.

 

[BlackPillChad]

What do you mean specifically here? Between Joseph and Chris?

Between Joseph and David. Joseph gets 84 /250 matches in his best picture despite being a low tier normie at best. David gets 10 /250, with similar looks.

Their looks are the same including race. Non-PSL halo's are similar. I don't buy 'women hate dogs' or 'looks like a stock photo'.

It's interesting that they performed so differently. Perhaps age sorting? Joseph is over 30, while David is under 30. That could effect Tinder's algorithm and show Joseph to older women who are looking for betabux. His competition would also be much weaker.

I think this is it. Looking through the article anyone over 30 got much better results than the 20's crowd.

And in the experiment, they had all men rated by women up to age 37

 

[LordNorwood]

Between Joseph and David. Joseph gets 84 /250 matches in his best picture despite being a low tier normie at best. David gets 10 /250, with similar looks.

Their looks are the same including race. Non-PSL halo's are similar. I don't buy 'women hate dogs' or 'looks like a stock photo'.

It's interesting that they performed so differently. Perhaps age sorting? Joseph is over 30, while David is under 30. That could effect Tinder's algorithm and show Joseph to older women who are looking for betabux. His competition would also be much weaker.

I think this is it. Looking through the article anyone over 30 got much better results than the 20's crowd.

And in the experiment, they had all men rated by women up to age 37

I think you're on to something but I also personally think David looks like shit, Joseph looks much better even though he's Norwooding. Plus he's wearing professional looking clothing indicating he's successful. I'm trying to put my finger on why David looks so much worse, his lower third is complete bullshit for starters, he looks recessed in his second pic.
EDIT: Also I see this as confirmation for something long believed that I have seen tons of evidence for - that men are at their most attractive, age-wise, in their early to mid 30s.

 

[GoMadAndSTFU]

I was rated 4/10 by a 7/10 2 years ago , and at this time i was a 4/10 .

 

[BlackPillChad]

@LordNorwood

If I can summarize our conversation:

Anonymous ratings of male attractiveness are not that reliable because women tend to overrate or underrate men based on what they think they should be attracted to instead of what they are attracted to, even when the only person they need to justify their choice to is themselves. A particular score on photofeeler is thus not a reliable indication of how a man will perform on dating apps, or his true IRL attractiveness to women.

This is seperate from the innate and real online SMW boost of good quality or frauded pictures (lighting, angles), and possible online SMW boost of things like dogs, background, and a natural looking smile; things that won't matter IRL.

My takeaway:

The only real option to be actually test this theory would be to use photo's which score highly or lowly due to Non-PSL aspects on photofeeler for tinder experiments. Compare high scoring normie photomaxed pictures to low scoring photominned chadlite pictures. Ideally make sure they are rated close to the same, so comparisons can be drawn. (make sure they are rated by women who are 29 or younger, I honestly believe that people claiming to have 9's and shit but no Tinder matches just let themselves be rated by bluepilled men)

Finally, as I said in the OP; The best way to get the most accurate ratings of true SMV is to not fraud or ogre your pictures. Use a neutral expression and front facing picture.