D
Deleted member 2205
1/1000000
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2019
- Posts
- 17,508
- Reputation
- 22,882
- OP
- #51
I won.

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I won.
why using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?Imo theres no point for having a "no one can be here" tier. 8 is 7.5 with personal preference.
But legit scoring system. Mods should sticky it when you're done making it so everyone on this site could finally have a universal raring guide. @Framletgod @FaceandHFD @Lorsss
yeah it sounds goodwhy using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?
incel: mogs 30% of population
normie: mogs 50% of population
upper tier normie: mogs 70% of population
chad: mogs 90% of population
That sounds good, but people are expecting a number when they come on here for rates. We should do the PSL number system alongside this. So people can use either. And the numbers can correlate with their word equvalent. For example: 3=incel, 4=normie, 5=uppertier normie, etc.why using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?
incel: mogs 30% of population
normie: mogs 50% of population
upper tier normie: mogs 70% of population
chad: mogs 90% of population
Going back to this, I believe this is what's wrong with r/truerateme's scale right now. 40%-80% of the population look like they're the same psl level. It would be hard to rate people accurately in percentiles, which is why the 2nd and 3rd quartiles are all around the number rating 4.why using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?
incel: mogs 30% of population
normie: mogs 50% of population
upper tier normie: mogs 70% of population
chad: mogs 90% of population
Good start but there is too much of a jump from 6 to 7. You can solve this by replacing the 8 with a 9, leaving more roomThe normie scale seems like cope because you guys eep rating peopel 7/10 when they would be rated 9 or 10s by us.
The earlist rating scale used by blackpilled forums was decibil based. 9/10 was 90th percentile, 8/10 was 80th percentile, and so on.
I feel like this would be a shit way to rate because only 1 out of every 5 guys I see is what I consider good looking. And it would be stupid to have numbers 5-8 be all used to describe people who area normie tier.
The PSL system seems to be the best one. Here is my slightly revised version of it from judging people in burgerland.
8/8 - Universal attraction (No one can be here)
7/8 - Model (1 in a 1000) [Very rare]
6/8 - Chad (1 in 20) [5% of population]
5/8 - Upper normie/Chadlite (1 in 5) [20% of population]
4/8 - normie [50% of population]
3/8 - lower normie [20% of population] incel
2/8 - ugly [5% of population] incel
1/8 - deformed [Very rare] incel
The 3 range is often used to describe incels or the bottom 10%. But it needed to encroach a more broad audience in to make decimal rating a lot easier.
Ex:
If lower tier normie was 10%, and normie was 20%, then rating people between the 2 (eg. a 3.5) will be confusing because each nomber away from normie tier doesn't hold the same value (6 would be more common than 3 even though both are 1 away)
This means more people who were originally 4 would be a low 3.
If everone accepts the values provided, I will work on making a new rating scale with help from the community. The ideal rating system has to be 1 standerdized system to avoid autists rating incorrectly, or confusing the poster.
The integration of having only 3 values (3,4,5) as 90% of the population allows for easier rating, and more effective use of decimals (.25, .5, etc.)
most men definitely deserve incel tier, Incel should be judged by if a model would settle for them or notI see. Would 30% of men really be incel tier? That seems very high.
Also I didn't want to say chadlite because I cringe everytime someone says it when seriously rating someone, but yeah I'll add that in.
Yes percentiles dont really work for rating facial features. Most people look like complete shit that percentile is too lenient on themGoing back to this, I believe this is what's wrong with r/truerateme's scale right now. 40%-80% of the population look like they're the same psl level. It would be hard to rate people accurately in percentiles, which is why the 2nd and 3rd quartiles are all around the number rating 4.
Ex: I see deviations from 6.5 to 8 on a certain udespost on that sub,just because people didn't want to "overrate"
Thats not accurate because if you factor in places like africa and south asia and south america the vast majority of people dont even come close to western standardschad: mogs 90% of population
Looks like the final graph was removed from the article but it's from a verified Washington Post reporter's account
Ya there is a study around 28-30% of men age 18-35 don't have sex.I see. Would 30% of men really be incel tier? That seems very high.
Also I didn't want to say chadlite because I cringe everytime someone says it when seriously rating someone, but yeah I'll add that in.
Ya there is a study around 28-30% of men age 18-35 don't have sex.
lessActual Chads are rare as fuck. Definitely 1% of the male population at the very most.