*** Offical Rating on a 1 to 10 Scale *** (1 Viewer)

[SuperJohn96]

Icon's ratings don't really answer your question very clearly. What does it mean to be "average?" Are you looking at all women in the world or just American women between certain ages?

Instinctively, I think women are rated against their peer group. For instance, porn stars are rated against other porn stars. If someone takes a pic of their next door neighbor, it's rated against your average American female of roughly the same age group.

Well, that's silly. The scale should be uniform.

No it is not silly. The scale needs to be inclusive of the "type" woman variable.Example:

Housewife:

Housewife

Movie Star:

Movie Star

I don't know about this. If measured against other housewives, that woman is an 8 or a 9, while Teri Hatcher is a 6 or 7 against other movie stars.So, it would almost seem that this woman is hotter than Teri Hatcher because people are giving her 9s while giving Hatcher 6s. Which just doesn't sit right with me.

We need a Football based analysis of women ratings as if each category was a different NFL position...so we can compare um...peaches to peaches...as it were QB: Real life girl next door types

RB: Celebrities (Movie/TV/Model, etc)

WR: Porn Stars

PK: Real life MILFs

And so on...

We need to establish a baseline, so that (just for example)

10 out of 10 QB is say, a 6.5 out of 10 RB

10 out of 10 WR is say, a 6 out of 10 RB

10 out of 10 PK is say, a 4 out of 10 RB

Okay, wait...how about an example...say we gave NCStateGirl (QB) a 10 out of 10. She would be a 6.5 compared to Jessica Alba (RB) a 10 out of 10 celebrity.

Thoughts?

I like your line of thinking, but I think this is too complicated to get people to follow.

How about this?

Peaches to Peaches Rankings:

10 - Hottest Female Celebrity (Movie/TV/Model, etc)

6.5 - Hottest Real life young woman

6.0 - Hottest Porn Star

4.0 - Hottest Real life MILF

Adjust the numbers accordingly, or add categories...

 

[(HULK)]

Right now I'm thinking general population is the offical scale.  If someone wants to use another scale, they could just outline that in their poll.

That's what I've been pushing for, but there are admittedly problems. If you're looking at world population as a whole, pretty much any woman we're asked to rank is a 9 or a 10. I think you've gotta limit it at least to "of childbearing age."

How about the general population in 1st world countries, within + or - 10 years of age of the subject? Unless otherwise specified?

 

[SuperJohn96]

Right now I'm thinking general population is the offical scale. If someone wants to use another scale, they could just outline that in their poll.

That's what I've been pushing for, but there are admittedly problems. If you're looking at world population as a whole, pretty much any woman we're asked to rank is a 9 or a 10. I think you've gotta limit it at least to "of childbearing age."

How about the general population in 1st world countries, within + or - 10 years of age of the subject? Unless otherwise specified?

And you thought MY idea was complex? LOL

 

[Smoo]

The scale should be logarithmic. If you meet a chick who's 10 times hotter than a 6, then she's a 7. 100 times hotter is an 8.

 

[culdeus]

Right now I'm thinking general population is the offical scale. If someone wants to use another scale, they could just outline that in their poll.

That's what I've been pushing for, but there are admittedly problems. If you're looking at world population as a whole, pretty much any woman we're asked to rank is a 9 or a 10. I think you've gotta limit it at least to "of childbearing age."

How about the general population in 1st world countries, within + or - 10 years of age of the subject? Unless otherwise specified?

agreedman law

 

[Homer J Simpson]

You should just have to know if she is a celbrity or a regular chick.

Most (not all) celebrity chicks were "regular" chicks at one time. Except Drew Barrymore and the Olson twins, there aren't many hotties that started out as celebs.

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities. Frankly, she can't hang with the big dogs.But if she were, say, a buddy's girlfriend...I'd currently be plotting his untimely demise.

 

[Smoo]

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities.

That's your mistake right there. That's just dumb.

 

[(HULK)]

I'm about to take off for the day. Hopefully some of the evening and late night posters will weigh in between now and tomorrow.

Please, if you would like your suggestion added to the voting when we make this a poll, put "Official Poll Suggestion" at the top of your post.

Tomorrow, I'll review the feedback and formulate a poll for an offical vote.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

How about the general population in 1st world countries, within + or - 10 years of age of the subject? Unless otherwise specified?

I'm good with the 1st world restriction, but the +/- 10 years doesn't work for me. Then you have to know the woman's age before you can rank.

 

[EYLive]

Each poll should state whether a "Celebrity Scale" or "Regular Scale" is to be used.

 

[Smoo]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Logarithmic, like the Richter scale.

10 is 10 times hotter than 9, which is 10 times hotter than 8, which is 10 times hotter than 7, etc.

Pro: 95% of women will fall in at 5 or below, where we don't care about too much differentiation. We then have a full 5 points to use to differentiate between the hot chicks.

Con: Decimal points required for proper scaling.

 

[culdeus]

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities.

That's your mistake right there. That's just dumb.

She's certainly not a 10. Solid 9 though.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities.

That's your mistake right there. That's just dumb.

If I'm using one scale, pretty much every Hollywood tartlet and pop singer is going to be an 8 or higher. Where's the fun in a 3-point scale?

 

[culdeus]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Logarithmic, like the Richter scale.

10 is 10 times hotter than 9, which is 10 times hotter than 8, which is 10 times hotter than 7, etc.

Pro: 95% of women will fall in at 5 or below, where we don't care about too much differentiation. We then have a full 5 points to use to differentiate between the hot chicks.

Con: Decimal points required for proper scaling.

Won't work. Lets just say for example you give errr....Mia Hamm an 8 that means she's 1x10^7 x hotter than some homeless bum on the corner. And she's 100x less hot than your average supermodel type. Too much range there. This begs for a linear system.

 

[Nigel]

The scale should be logarithmic. If you meet a chick who's 10 times hotter than a 6, then she's a 7. 100 times hotter is an 8.

Not unlike the Richter scale.

 

[Smoo]

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities.

That's your mistake right there. That's just dumb.

If I'm using one scale, pretty much every Hollywood tartlet and pop singer is going to be an 8 or higher. Where's the fun in a 3-point scale?

That's where a logarithmic scale becomes a thing of beauty.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Each poll should state whether a "Celebrity Scale" or "Regular Scale" is to be used.

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

 

[FUBAR]

How about the general population in 1st world countries, within + or - 10 years of age of the subject? Unless otherwise specified?

I'm good with the 1st world restriction, but the +/- 10 years doesn't work for me. Then you have to know the woman's age before you can rank.

How about we forget the +/- 10 years thing and go for general age?MAJOR difference between an 18-25 year old and a 60 year old.

Not that many 60 year olds are hot, but some deserve better than the "1" we'd almost have to give.

Also,

How about this?

Peaches to Peaches Rankings:

10 - Hottest Female Celebrity (Movie/TV/Model, etc)

6.5 - Hottest Real life young woman

6.0 - Hottest Porn Star

4.0 - Hottest Real life MILF

Adjust the numbers accordingly, or add categories...

I must like somewhat older women, some real life MILFs are hotter than other real life young women.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities.

That's your mistake right there. That's just dumb.

If I'm using one scale, pretty much every Hollywood tartlet and pop singer is going to be an 8 or higher. Where's the fun in a 3-point scale?

That's where a logarithmic scale becomes a thing of beauty.

A logarithmic scale is a completely asinine suggestion for this type of rating.Frankly, I'm shocked and appalled at the very thought of it..

 

[FUBAR]

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities.

That's your mistake right there. That's just dumb.

If I'm using one scale, pretty much every Hollywood tartlet and pop singer is going to be an 8 or higher. Where's the fun in a 3-point scale?

Good point. decimals are your friend.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Post-menopausal and prepubescent women are not on the scale.

 

[Smoo]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Logarithmic, like the Richter scale.

10 is 10 times hotter than 9, which is 10 times hotter than 8, which is 10 times hotter than 7, etc.

Pro: 95% of women will fall in at 5 or below, where we don't care about too much differentiation. We then have a full 5 points to use to differentiate between the hot chicks.

Con: Decimal points required for proper scaling.

Won't work. Lets just say for example you give errr....Mia Hamm an 8 that means she's 1x10^7 x hotter than some homeless bum on the corner. And she's 100x less hot than your average supermodel type. Too much range there. This begs for a linear system.

It will totally work. Your "average" supermodel type is not a 10. With a logarithmic scale, supermodel types start at about 5. "Average" girls are about a 3-4. The top 5 points are all for supermodel types. Your "average" supermodel will clock in at about 7. Anything over 7 and we're talking chicks you'd go to prison or lose a limb for.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Only living human females will be considered on the scale.

 

[Smoo]

Look, if someone asks me to rate Reese Witherspoon, I'm going to give her a 6 because I'm comparing her to other celebrities.

That's your mistake right there. That's just dumb.

If I'm using one scale, pretty much every Hollywood tartlet and pop singer is going to be an 8 or higher. Where's the fun in a 3-point scale?

That's where a logarithmic scale becomes a thing of beauty.

A logarithmic scale is a completely asinine suggestion for this type of rating.Frankly, I'm shocked and appalled at the very thought of it..

Logarithms are PERFECT for this type of scale. Everybody wants a separate scale for "regulars" and "celebrities". This one gives it to you. The bottom 5 points are basically regulars, and the top 5 are for celebrities, and it's skewed properly.

 

[culdeus]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Logarithmic, like the Richter scale.

10 is 10 times hotter than 9, which is 10 times hotter than 8, which is 10 times hotter than 7, etc.

Pro: 95% of women will fall in at 5 or below, where we don't care about too much differentiation. We then have a full 5 points to use to differentiate between the hot chicks.

Con: Decimal points required for proper scaling.

Won't work. Lets just say for example you give errr....Mia Hamm an 8 that means she's 1x10^7 x hotter than some homeless bum on the corner. And she's 100x less hot than your average supermodel type. Too much range there. This begs for a linear system.

It will totally work. Your "average" supermodel type is not a 10. With a logarithmic scale, supermodel types start at about 5. "Average" girls are about a 3-4. The top 5 points are all for supermodel types. Your "average" supermodel will clock in at about 7. Anything over 7 and we're talking chicks you'd go to prison or lose a limb for.

In your world then everyone is gonna be so close together the difference between 5 and 5.3 is the difference between :( and

 

[SuperJohn96]

How about the general population in 1st world countries, within + or - 10 years of age of the subject? Unless otherwise specified?

I'm good with the 1st world restriction, but the +/- 10 years doesn't work for me. Then you have to know the woman's age before you can rank.

How about we forget the +/- 10 years thing and go for general age?MAJOR difference between an 18-25 year old and a 60 year old.

Not that many 60 year olds are hot, but some deserve better than the "1" we'd almost have to give.

Also,

How about this?

Peaches to Peaches Rankings:

10 - Hottest Female Celebrity (Movie/TV/Model, etc)

6.5 - Hottest Real life young woman

6.0 - Hottest Porn Star

4.0 - Hottest Real life MILF

Adjust the numbers accordingly, or add categories...

I must like somewhat older women, some real life MILFs are hotter than other real life young women.

True enough, BUT SOME only...So take the hottest MILFs (10) which convert to a 4.0 according to my *** OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION *** and they would be better than a Young woman who scores a 3.9 on this scale, which converts to a 6 on the young woman scale.

So the hottest MILF would equal a 6 on the young woman scale.

I think that is about right, considering how few really hot MILFs there are...

Again, these numbers are not set in stone...just my first crack at this.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Post-menopausal and prepubescent women are not on the scale.

Fixed.

 

[Smoo]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Logarithmic, like the Richter scale.

10 is 10 times hotter than 9, which is 10 times hotter than 8, which is 10 times hotter than 7, etc.

Pro: 95% of women will fall in at 5 or below, where we don't care about too much differentiation. We then have a full 5 points to use to differentiate between the hot chicks.

Con: Decimal points required for proper scaling.

Won't work. Lets just say for example you give errr....Mia Hamm an 8 that means she's 1x10^7 x hotter than some homeless bum on the corner. And she's 100x less hot than your average supermodel type. Too much range there. This begs for a linear system.

It will totally work. Your "average" supermodel type is not a 10. With a logarithmic scale, supermodel types start at about 5. "Average" girls are about a 3-4. The top 5 points are all for supermodel types. Your "average" supermodel will clock in at about 7. Anything over 7 and we're talking chicks you'd go to prison or lose a limb for.

In your world then everyone is gonna be so close together the difference between 5 and 5.3 is the difference between :( and

I disagree. If a 5.3 is hot, a 5 is also going to be hot, just a bit less so.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Post-menopausal and prepubescent women are not on the scale.

Fixed.

So who is on the scale?

 

[culdeus]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Logarithmic, like the Richter scale.

10 is 10 times hotter than 9, which is 10 times hotter than 8, which is 10 times hotter than 7, etc.

Pro: 95% of women will fall in at 5 or below, where we don't care about too much differentiation. We then have a full 5 points to use to differentiate between the hot chicks.

Con: Decimal points required for proper scaling.

Won't work. Lets just say for example you give errr....Mia Hamm an 8 that means she's 1x10^7 x hotter than some homeless bum on the corner. And she's 100x less hot than your average supermodel type. Too much range there. This begs for a linear system.

It will totally work. Your "average" supermodel type is not a 10. With a logarithmic scale, supermodel types start at about 5. "Average" girls are about a 3-4. The top 5 points are all for supermodel types. Your "average" supermodel will clock in at about 7. Anything over 7 and we're talking chicks you'd go to prison or lose a limb for.

In your world then everyone is gonna be so close together the difference between 5 and 5.3 is the difference between :( and

I disagree. If a 5.3 is hot, a 5 is also going to be hot, just a bit less so.

Well whatever your "average" is in the log scale is going to be so hard to differentiate within 10x of average because so few wimmen fall outside of the 10x range from average. Then you'd have to define what 10x even means. Give me an example of someone and then someone who is 10x of that person.Too tedious. Needs to be a checklist linear process with a defined distribution.

 

[Smoo]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Logarithmic, like the Richter scale.

10 is 10 times hotter than 9, which is 10 times hotter than 8, which is 10 times hotter than 7, etc.

Pro: 95% of women will fall in at 5 or below, where we don't care about too much differentiation. We then have a full 5 points to use to differentiate between the hot chicks.

Con: Decimal points required for proper scaling.

Won't work. Lets just say for example you give errr....Mia Hamm an 8 that means she's 1x10^7 x hotter than some homeless bum on the corner. And she's 100x less hot than your average supermodel type. Too much range there. This begs for a linear system.

It will totally work. Your "average" supermodel type is not a 10. With a logarithmic scale, supermodel types start at about 5. "Average" girls are about a 3-4. The top 5 points are all for supermodel types. Your "average" supermodel will clock in at about 7. Anything over 7 and we're talking chicks you'd go to prison or lose a limb for.

In your world then everyone is gonna be so close together the difference between 5 and 5.3 is the difference between :( and

I disagree. If a 5.3 is hot, a 5 is also going to be hot, just a bit less so.

Well whatever your "average" is in the log scale is going to be so hard to differentiate within 10x of average because so few wimmen fall outside of the 10x range from average. Then you'd have to define what 10x even means. Give me an example of someone and then someone who is 10x of that person.Too tedious. Needs to be a checklist linear process with a defined distribution.

Okay, it doesn't have to be a log, but it needs to be exponential to create the fine tuning needed at the celebrity end. Maybe each point increase is 2 or 3 times hotter instead of 10.OFFICIAL SUGGESTION

Non-logarithmic, but still exponential scale.

 

[FUBAR]

How about the general population in 1st world countries, within + or - 10 years of age of the subject? Unless otherwise specified?

I'm good with the 1st world restriction, but the +/- 10 years doesn't work for me. Then you have to know the woman's age before you can rank.

How about we forget the +/- 10 years thing and go for general age?MAJOR difference between an 18-25 year old and a 60 year old.

Not that many 60 year olds are hot, but some deserve better than the "1" we'd almost have to give.

Also,

How about this?

Peaches to Peaches Rankings:

10 - Hottest Female Celebrity (Movie/TV/Model, etc)

6.5 - Hottest Real life young woman

6.0 - Hottest Porn Star

4.0 - Hottest Real life MILF

Adjust the numbers accordingly, or add categories...

I must like somewhat older women, some real life MILFs are hotter than other real life young women.

True enough, BUT SOME only...So take the hottest MILFs (10) which convert to a 4.0 according to my *** OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION *** and they would be better than a Young woman who scores a 3.9 on this scale, which converts to a 6 on the young woman scale.

So the hottest MILF would equal a 6 on the young woman scale.

I think that is about right, considering how few really hot MILFs there are...

Again, these numbers are not set in stone...just my first crack at this.

I disagree. If I see a MILF who I think is hotter than a young female, I'll simply rate the MILF higher. No need for a scale converter.

 

[FUBAR]

OFFICIAL POLL SUGGESTION

Only living human females will be considered on the scale.

If I want to submit Ms. Monroe, why can't I?Cadavers, should be on a seperate scale.

 

[(HULK)]

Bump for more suggestions

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Bump for more suggestions

I think it's clear that the Homer J Simpson Dual Hotness Scale™ is the only viable option.Rating systems requiring any math more difiicult than 10>1 is right out.

 

[Smoo]

Bump for more suggestions

I think it's clear that the Homer J Simpson Dual Hotness Scale™ is the only viable option.Rating systems requiring any math more difiicult than 10>1 is right out.

The dual hotness scale is foolish.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Bump for more suggestions

I think it's clear that the Homer J Simpson Dual Hotness Scale™ is the only viable option.Rating systems requiring any math more difiicult than 10>1 is right out.

The dual hotness scale is foolish.

A logarithmic or exponential scale reeks of Canadianism.

 

[Smoo]

Bump for more suggestions

I think it's clear that the Homer J Simpson Dual Hotness Scale™ is the only viable option.Rating systems requiring any math more difiicult than 10>1 is right out.

The dual hotness scale is foolish.

A logarithmic or exponential scale reeks of Canadianism.

I didn't know there was an ism for that.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Bump for more suggestions

I think it's clear that the Homer J Simpson Dual Hotness Scale™ is the only viable option.Rating systems requiring any math more difiicult than 10>1 is right out.

The dual hotness scale is foolish.

A logarithmic or exponential scale reeks of Canadianism.

I didn't know there was an ism for that.

Oh, don't try and play the "innocent beaver" card with me, buddy. I'm onto you.

 

[Hastur]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/URL]

The dual hotness scale is foolish.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A logarithmic or exponential scale reeks of Canadianism.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't know there was an ism for that.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, don't try and play the "innocent beaver" card with me, buddy. I'm onto you.[/QUOTE]Funny...that's what I thought you were into.

 

[offdee]

Interesting.

 

[(HULK)]

We should revist this thread now that offdee has been officially fired and the offdee scale has been officially debunked as useless.

 

[chet]

We should revist this thread now that offdee has been officially fired and the offdee scale has been officially debunked as useless.

As an aside, Smoo was active as recently as November:

Smoo Member Since 14 Apr 2003

OfflineLast Active Nov 05 2013 04:58 PM

 

[(HULK)]

I suggest we determine 3 peer groups for women, and then rate them 1 to 10 in that peer group.

Suggested peer groups:

-Famous Scale (for models/actresses/famous folks)

-Chick Scale (for women in everyday life that are generally attractive in some capacity... 75 year olds would be excluded, same with 400 lbers)

-Hag Scale (for women with more qualities detrimental to their attractiveness than not)