Bar Refaeli in candid

[DelonLover1999]

But what do these numbers mean?

it's just a different scale, how can you not grasp this jfl. Do you think there's anything inherently special about the number 10?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

What is her attractiveness level compared to the general population? (Take body into account)

And change the poll options to the actual rating that will be given. You can still do 7.5 - 10, although I'd personally change it to 5-8 psl in 0.25 increments, to align more with forum standards.

You still need to explain how the numbers scale.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Everyone knows what 4,5,6 psl is

Obviously not, because I don't.

6 sd exists too

Yeah, that's ~4 females in existence. For the sake of feasibility, just round them down to +5.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

it's just a different scale, how can you not grasp this jfl. Do you think there's anything inherently special about the number 10?

How can you not grasp that you haven't explained the scaling?

 

[DelonLover1999]

You still need to explain how the numbers scale.

The scaling is the same except multiplied by a factor of 0.8, you don't lose any granularity whatsoever. If you want to be anal, the interval size would change from 0.25 to 0.25*0.8, but that's unnecessary and won't affect much.

If you really insist, just use the 7.5-10 scale, but put the actual rating value, it makes much more sense.

 

[cytoplasm]

Obviously not, because I don't.

How can you be on the forum for 2 years and not know

Yeah, that's ~4 females in existence. For the sake of feasibility, just round them down to +5.

But what if somebody thinks shes top 4 in existence? And would that make those 4 ppl 11/10 then

 

[Reckless Turtle]

The scaling is the same except multiplied by a factor of 0.8, you don't lose any granularity whatsoever. If you want to be anal, the interval size would change from 0.25 to 0.25*0.8, but that's unnecessary and won't affect much.

If you really insist, just use the 7.5-10 scale, but put the actual rating value, it makes much more sense.

I don't understand what you're suggesting. It would be easier if you just shared the formula you had in mind.

 

[DelonLover1999]

The scaling is the same except multiplied by a factor of 0.8, you don't lose any granularity whatsoever. If you want to be anal, the interval size would change from 0.25 to 0.25*0.8, but that's unnecessary and won't affect much.

If you really insist, just use the 7.5-10 scale, but put the actual rating value, it makes much more sense.

you can make a bell curve on any interval range jfl, the real numbers are such that there is an uncountably infinite amount of numbers between every two of them (if these are two distinct), so you're set anyways.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

How can you be on the forum for 2 years and not know

Nobody's explained it to me.

But what if somebody thinks shes top 4 in existence? And would that make those 4 ppl 11/10 then

For the sake of feasibility, just round them down to +5.

 

[DelonLover1999]

I don't understand what you're suggesting. It would be easier if you just shared the formula you had in mind.

just imagine you're "shrinking down" your scale from 1-10 to 1-8, like resizing an image. You don't lose any detail, it's just for the purpose of being closer to other forum polls in terms of notation.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

just imagine you're "shrinking down" your scale from 1-10 to 1-8, like resizing an image. You don't lose any detail, it's just for the purpose of being closer to other forum polls in terms of notation.

It would be easier if you just shared the formula you had in mind.

 

[cytoplasm]

But something can be 50 sd above the mean. So you should have just put either sd or out of 10

 

[Krakowski]

Just put 1-8 psl. Or 4-8 including halves. Ppl think theyre rating her out of 10

Nah just make it 100x more complicated for no reason

 

[Reckless Turtle]

So you should have just put either sd or out of 10

Okay then pretend that the "(5/10)" says "(5)" instead.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Nah just make it 100x more complicated for no reason

View attachment 2287967

place your vote.

 

[Krakowski]

Lacks ass but tits are amazing and her face is very good also

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Lacks ass but tits are amazing and her face is very good also

Agreed.

place your vote.

 

[cytoplasm]

Okay then pretend that the "(5/10)" says "(5)" instead.

But still its percentiles and you didnt give anything below like 97th

Everyone here knows psl and what for. eg. Standard for 6 psl is and can compare it to. Ppl just think theyre rating her out of 10

 

[DelonLover1999]

I don't understand what you're suggesting. It would be easier if you just shared the formula you had in mind.

You're being lazy, I already explained it. There is no new formula, you just adjust the intervals according to the 0.8 factor.

The problem with using standards devs like this is that people don't have an intuitive of comprehension of what they actually mean, they aren't visualizing the bell curve in their head. Even your spreadsheet with the population size for each one doesn't help.

People will see "500,000,000 are in the 93 percentile, which is a 6.5", but that doesn't help much. It carries no intuitive value. None's brain is like "oh, this girl... I think there are around 10 million of people who look like her".

 

[Reckless Turtle]

But still its percentiles and you didnt give anything below like 97th

Yes, but the for sake of limited polling options you should just round up in that case. That limit was also chosen to remove outliers from retarded/troll users.

Everyone here knows psl and what for. eg. Standard for 6 psl is and can compare it to.

Obviously not, because I don't.

Ppl just think theyre rating her out of 10

They are.

For the sake of feasibility, just round them down to +5.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

You're being lazy

Ironic.

There is no new formula, you just adjust the intervals according to the 0.8 factor.

"Interval" meaning SD?

 

[DelonLover1999]

"Interval" meaning SD?

Look at the spreadsheet you post on every thread. The numbers on the "rating" column are completely arbitrary and can be changed without altering the statistical model in any way. You could put freaking hieroglyphs in there, or emojis, it wouldn't matter, it's just notation. So instead of 1-10, you might choose 1-8, but this part doesn't matter though. Keep your ratings notation, I don't mind. But changing the title like I outlined previously and also putting the actual rating number in the poll options would be nice improvements imo.

 

[Deleted member 9467]

her face looks asian

 

[Reckless Turtle]

The numbers on the "rating" column are completely arbitrary and can be changed without altering the statistical model in any way. You could put freaking hieroglyphs in there, or emojis, it wouldn't matter, it's just notation.

Those numbers correspond to standard deviations above the mean (which is 5, as explained in the poll title). But yes, if you want to be philosophical, numbers are completely arbitrary.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

her face looks asian

Slavs are close to Asia.

place your vote.

 

[DelonLover1999]

Those numbers correspond to standard deviations above the mean (which is 5, as explained in the poll title). But yes, if you want to be philosophical, numbers are completely arbitrary.

yes, I obv get that they correspond to the sds, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's basically a function, you assigned each of these numbers to a standard deviation (5 is the mean, and so forth). It's not about being philosophical, these numbers that you choose to represent the sds are arbitrary, you could have chosen any set of other numbers, letters, no problem.

But you're missing the point, that's not the main problem in your system, as I've said before. The main problem is phrasing and the fact that the poll options should be 7.5 - 10 instead of 2.5 - 5, it makes more much intuitive sense.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

It's basically a function, you assigned each of these numbers to a standard deviation (5 is the mean, and so forth).

Okay, so what should the new mean and SD be?

The main problem is phrasing and the fact that the poll options should be 7.5 - 10 instead of 2.5 - 5, it makes more much intuitive sense.

There wasn't enough room in the title prompt to add an additional clause saying to "add the SD to the mean to get the cumulative score out of 10."

 

[DelonLover1999]

There wasn't enough room in the title prompt to add an additional clause saying to "add the SD to the mean to get the cumulative score out of 10."

you don't actually need to specify this, it won't clarify shit for anybody, they're probably confused the minute they step on any of your rating threads anyway. As I said, even someone that studies math all day everyday, I found them to be a bit confusing. You are free to discredit my opinion or claim that I actually don't know any math, btw. But know this: When conducting a research poll, having a good statistical model and doing everything right mathematically is only 1/2 of the task. The other half is creating questions and poll choices that people will easily understand and be able to relate to their own experiences, thus maximizing the accuracy of the research as a whole.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

When conducting a research poll, having a good statistical model and doing everything right mathematically is only 1/2 of the task. The other half is creating questions and poll choices that people will easily understand and be able to relate to their own experiences, thus maximizing the accuracy of the research as a whole.

This model would probably not be valid for a legitimate study for multiple reasons (which is why it's on this website). The title is short and easy to understand for individuals who have some level of understanding of basic statistics.

 

[DelonLover1999]

This model would probably not be valid for a legitimate study for multiple reasons

what would be those reasons?

The title is short and easy to understand for individuals who have some level of understanding of basic statistics.

Disagree here. It's short but also needlessly obtuse verbally and uninviting. "full body for prime age females" is just comically technical.
I like the titles I suggested much better, but I suppose it's personal preference anyway, so no point in fussing about it.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

what would be those reasons?

Asking study participants to rate people based on a statistical model is impractical. It's more feasible to ask participants to identify the most attractive individual within a group (or pairing). Also, the examples in the posts are horribly controlled for due to factors involved in finding enough candids online.

I like the titles I suggested much better

You still need to explain how the numbers scale.

 

[mug]

smash

 

[Reckless Turtle]

smash

place your vote.

 

[aesthetic beauty]

View attachment 2287649

This is hard. She looks like a high 8/9+ in the runway pictures but looks like a mid to low 8 without makeup. Do you have any more candid photos?

 

[emeraldglass]

View attachment 2287618View attachment 2287619View attachment 2287620View attachment 2287621View attachment 2287622View attachment 2287623View attachment 2287626View attachment 2287632View attachment 2287627View attachment 2287633View attachment 2287635View attachment 2287636View attachment 2287637View attachment 2287624View attachment 2287625View attachment 2287628View attachment 2287629View attachment 2287631View attachment 2287638View attachment 2287639View attachment 2287640View attachment 2287641View attachment 2287644View attachment 2287645View attachment 2287643

I will give her extra points because of the cute parrot.

would slowly insert my penis into her and make her scream the national anthem of Israhell.

 

[emeraldglass]

View attachment 2287618View attachment 2287619View attachment 2287620View attachment 2287621View attachment 2287622View attachment 2287623View attachment 2287626View attachment 2287632View attachment 2287627View attachment 2287633View attachment 2287635View attachment 2287636View attachment 2287637View attachment 2287624View attachment 2287625View attachment 2287628View attachment 2287629View attachment 2287631View attachment 2287638View attachment 2287639View attachment 2287640View attachment 2287641View attachment 2287644View attachment 2287645View attachment 2287643

I will give her extra points because of the cute parrot.

would slowly insert my penis into her and make her scream the national anthem of Israhell.

 

[DelonLover1999]

Asking study participants to rate people based on a statistical model is impractical. Also, the examples in the posts are horribly controlled for due to factors involved in finding enough candids online.

fair enough, I thought it was something to do with her in particular, the way you worded made it seem so.

It's more feasible to ask participants to identify the most attractive individual within a group (or pairing).

Agree, the best way to find out a ranking for a certain group of models would be an ELO rating system with 1v1 battles, like the OG facemash website.

As for the titles I suggested, consider only the linguistic variation, and mantain your rating scale and the numbers as they are. Something like:

What is her attractiveness rating compared to the general population? (Check the sheet below for more details)

 

[Reckless Turtle]

This is hard. She looks like a high 8/9+ in the runway pictures but looks like a mid to low 8 without makeup. Do you have any more candid photos?

Copy-pasting my whole folder (42 pics) in two posts (25 file limit per post) rather than weeding out all of the duplicates:

 

[aesthetic beauty]

View attachment 2288103

Are you still taking recommendations for models?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

This is hard. She looks like a high 8/9+ in the runway pictures but looks like a mid to low 8 without makeup. Do you have any more candid photos?

 

[aesthetic beauty]

View attachment 2288136View attachment 2288137View attachment 2288138View attachment 2288139View attachment 2288140View attachment 2288141View attachment 2288143View attachment 2288144View attachment 2288145View attachment 2288147View attachment 2288148View attachment 2288150View attachment 2288151View attachment 2288152View attachment 2288153View attachment 2288154View attachment 2288157

I would say mid 8. Like 8.5/8.7. The eyelashes and length and thickness of her eyebrows takes away from her looks.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Agree, the best way to find out a ranking for a certain group of models would be an ELO rating system with 1v1 battles, like the OG facemash website.

Correct. Doing this with 360° full-body examples is impractical though. Using 3D-rendered nude examples of each individual is a possibility but is still highly impractical.

As for the titles I suggested, consider only the linguistic variation, and mantain your rating scale and the numbers as they are. Something like:

What is her attractiveness rating compared to the general population? (Check the sheet below for more details)

Call me stubborn, but that seems more convoluted.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Are you still taking recommendations for models?

Looksmax.org rates famous, attractive women

Mass tagging people apparently no longer works so this won't update much unless people repeatedly bump this thread and the linked threads. Woman Nationality Votes Adjusted Sample Size Raw Rating (x/10) Adjusted Rating (x/10) SD Rarity (1/x) Number of females currently alive who...

looksmax.org

 

[Deleted member 21244]

View attachment 2287618View attachment 2287619View attachment 2287620View attachment 2287621View attachment 2287622View attachment 2287623View attachment 2287626View attachment 2287632View attachment 2287627View attachment 2287633View attachment 2287635View attachment 2287636View attachment 2287637View attachment 2287624View attachment 2287625View attachment 2287628View attachment 2287629View attachment 2287631View attachment 2287638View attachment 2287639View attachment 2287640View attachment 2287641View attachment 2287644View attachment 2287645View attachment 2287643

Mamma mia

 

[Reckless Turtle]

The eyelashes and length and thickness of her eyebrows takes away from her looks.

They are suboptimal but I disagree with the extent that you seem to be applying them to the rating.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Mamma mia

place your vote.

 

[aesthetic beauty]

They are suboptimal but I disagree with the extent that you seem to be applying them to the rating.

You can definitely take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

You can definitely take it with a grain of salt.

That is the basis of these polls in general.

 

[aesthetic beauty]

They are suboptimal but I disagree with the extent that you seem to be applying them to the rating.

It does have a strong impact on appearance. The girl in this pic is probably less attractive overall but looks more attractive due brows,lashes, and limbal rings.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

It does have a strong impact on appearance. The girl in this pic is probably less attractive overall but looks more attractive due brows,lashes, and limbal rings.
View attachment 2288275

They are additive factors, but the shape and size of the eyes are what matter the most.