Make a proper standard for measuring PSL

[Patrick Baitman]

INTRODUCTION: The PSL scale we use is extremely inconsistent and non reliable because it's not standardised. We just rate based on our subjective opinions.

ITT: PITCH IN YOUR IDEAS TO MAKE A STANDARDISED PSL SCALE

MY IDEA:


• Somewhat like the attractiveness scale from:

But to improvise this, we've to define the core features of every PSL (features which are only related to the bone structure).

•The PSL (bone structure) score chart should be made for almost every pheno, like truerateme's chart:



• Points for hair, skin, eye colour halo should be added to the PSL score for a final rating

• PSL score would be important because it's only related to the bone structure which is very difficult to change without surgeries. Final score on the other hand can be improved upon by softmaxxing.

tagging high IQ users for their input:
@aestheticallypleasin @retard @Deliciadecu @Mohamad @Chad1212 @HighIQcel @LowInhibIncel

wanted to tag more but mods will give me a warning for it

 

[Patrick Baitman]

more tags: @Kingkellz @TheMewingBBC @thenextopry @Gazzamogga @Chadelite @needsolution

 

[Deleted member 2661]

 

[Patrick Baitman]

View attachment 508722

Forgot to tag you too. I've brainlet tier memory

 

[Hunter Vallance]

INTRODUCTION: The PSL scale we use is extremely inconsistent and non reliable because it's not standardised. We just rate based on our subjective opinions.

ITT: PITCH IN YOUR IDEAS TO MAKE A STANDARDISED PSL SCALE

MY IDEA:


• Somewhat like the attractiveness scale from:
View attachment 508685
But to improvise this, we've to define the core features of every PSL (features which are only related to the bone structure).

•The PSL (bone structure) score chart should be made for almost every pheno, like truerateme's chart:



• Points for hair, skin, eye colour halo should be added to the PSL score for a final rating

• PSL score would be important because it's only related to the bone structure which is very difficult to change without surgeries. Final score on the other hand can be improved upon by softmaxxing.

tagging high IQ users for their input:
@aestheticallypleasin @retard @Deliciadecu @Mohamad @Chad1212 @HighIQcel @LowInhibIncel

wanted to tag more but mods will give me a warning for it

Over for Dorsiacels

 

[Nisse]

Great idea, all high iq posters should team up on this one, someone tag them

 

[CsCurry]

Trurateme’s chart is incredibly opinion based.

a mod on there thinks that cam Newton and Luke keuchly are 5-6 range

while your typical soy creature from reddit is like a 5.5

 

[Deleted member 6856]

This niga's smart tbh

 

[Patrick Baitman]

Great idea, all high iq posters should team up on this one, someone tag them

I'll need your input too tbh. And yes please tag them, my memory is failing me rn

 

[Deleted member 6873]

high iq bro, mirin'

 

[CsCurry]

The very way to do rates is percentile based.

mog 70% of non obese non disabled population = 7.

mog 60% = 6.

ect

you could also do it based on standard deviations from mean and make it normal distribution(6= 1 std from mean, 7 =2 std from mean)

But past that, a psl scale is useless.

 

[Deleted member 7866]

I might make one, we need this a lot. We should go up using .25 to make it v accurate

 

[Nisse]

I'll need your input too tbh. And yes please tag them, my memory is failing me rn

I dont know who the high iq posters are tbh

 

[Britishlooksmaxxer]

Why didn’t you tag me you low iq cel

 

[Deleted member 7866]

I dont know who the high iq posters are tbh

Me, me and me

 

[aestheticallypleasin]

INTRODUCTION: The PSL scale we use is extremely inconsistent and non reliable because it's not standardised. We just rate based on our subjective opinions.

ITT: PITCH IN YOUR IDEAS TO MAKE A STANDARDISED PSL SCALE

MY IDEA:


• Somewhat like the attractiveness scale from:
View attachment 508685
But to improvise this, we've to define the core features of every PSL (features which are only related to the bone structure).

•The PSL (bone structure) score chart should be made for almost every pheno, like truerateme's chart:



• Points for hair, skin, eye colour halo should be added to the PSL score for a final rating

• PSL score would be important because it's only related to the bone structure which is very difficult to change without surgeries. Final score on the other hand can be improved upon by softmaxxing.

tagging high IQ users for their input:
@aestheticallypleasin @retard @Deliciadecu @Mohamad @Chad1212 @HighIQcel @LowInhibIncel

wanted to tag more but mods will give me a warning for it

definitely should be a rating scale to assess facial attractiveness and it should be pinned in the ratings section because everyone just rates whatev they want lmao

and just rating bone structure is also retarded when clearly other things make a huge difference

unfortunately chances are this is gonna be another thread lost in the offtopic section, but if its ever gonna actually happen then sure id help

 

[jackthenerd]

It's a good idea, but there's also a fundamental problem with raiting, which is the harmony element. Some say if you have good features you automatically have good harmony, I disagree. I see OFTEN people with softer features mog the living shit out of features and good bones you can't critique so well. You'll sometimes see some ogre looking dude, top tier bones, features that are difficult to critique but there's just something off putting about his face, that makes him hardly average. That's the harmony/subjectivity element. Getting a general base raiting is a good idea though, because it could probably be applied accurately in 65-80% of cases (maybe higher).

 

[Patrick Baitman]

The very way to do rates is percentile based.

mog 70% of non obese non disabled population = 7.

mog 60% = 6.

ect

you could also do it based on standard deviations from mean and make it normal distribution(6= 1 std from mean, 7 =2 std from mean)

But past that, a psl scale is useless.

That approach is not quite useful. We need to define the ratings based on features, not on the basis of where your beauty places you overall, atleast it's not something we can do on early stages

 

[Patrick Baitman]

and just rating bone structure is also retarded when clearly other things make a huge difference

Other things do make a huge difference, I agree but most of those can be improved through soft maxxing. And it's not like we're not going to consider them, their scores will be considered in the final score.

 

[Nisse]

Me, me and me

Shut up, you probably dont even have divison in math yet

 

[Deleted member 7866]

Shut up, you probably dont even have divison in math yet

Just long division max bro

 

[Patrick Baitman]

Why didn’t you tag me you low iq cel

I'm sorry, as I said before, I was unable to remember the tags of most users.

But yes, I certainly need your opinion

 

[Chad69]

Good thread

 

[Patrick Baitman]

Rough skeleton of PSL scale (based on visible bone structure)
1: boneless
2: visible chin(s)
3: some forward growth but no good visible features
4: forward growth but no jaw definition, recessed chin
5: visible but narrow jawline, slightly recessed chin and no zygos,
6: slightly upswinged maxilla , visible jaw/chin and some zygos definition
7: clearly visible low/mid set zygos, prominent jawline
8: high set zygos with eye support, long and broad jawline

Obviously this is just a Skeleton and it's raw AF so it needs more refinement

I think, we should start with pointing out the major prominent features (bone related) and ratios which makes difference like jaw, chin, brow ridge, eye support, maxilla position, forawrd growth, es ratio, facial thirds, facial fifths, bizygomatic/Bigonal ratio, etc (please name more)

Thoughts?
@aestheticallypleasin @Britishlooksmaxxer @jackthenerd @DaddyBigPenis @Gazzamogga

Tagging only those I can think of right now

 

[Deleted member 1100]

RATING IS COPE

 

[Gazzamogga]

@Gazzamogga

Tagging only those I can think of right now

Good to know I live rent free in your head

 

[Patrick Baitman]

It's a good idea, but there's also a fundamental problem with raiting, which is the harmony element. Some say if you have good features you automatically have good harmony, I disagree. I see OFTEN people with softer features mog the living shit out of features and good bones you can't critique so well. You'll sometimes see some ogre looking dude, top tier bones, features that are difficult to critique but there's just something off putting about his face, that makes him hardly average. That's the harmony/subjectivity element. Getting a general base raiting is a good idea though, because it could probably be applied accurately in 65-80% of cases (maybe higher).

I've been trying to define it. My approach is:

Every harmonious face differs from the ideal (golden ratio) by a common degree. But that's just a hypothesis I pulled out of the thin air, might test it later

 

[Patrick Baitman]

Good to know I live rent free in your head

You've made some high IQ posts before, that's why I tagged you

 

[Deleted member 2012]

This won’t work because it will be a huge pain in the ass adding up points for each little thing. No one will bother doing that to the average greycel who comes along asking for a rate.

It’s better to just rate the face as a whole and only talk about the things that are worth mentioning, such as the main halos and failos.

Also, even if you overcomplicate it and break it down into giving points to each part separately, it’s still going to have some degree of subjectivity to it, so it’s pointless.

 

[Patrick Baitman]

This won’t work because it will be a huge pain in the ass adding up points for each little thing. No one will bother doing that to the average greycel who comes along asking for a rate.

It’s better to just rate the face as a whole and only talk about the things that are worth mentioning, such as the main halos and failos.

Also, even if you overcomplicate it and break it down into giving points to each part separately, it’s still going to have some degree of subjectivity to it, so it’s pointless.

You're right, an overly comprehensive guide might not be useful and would be in fact hard to follow.

So how about we make a simple scale like rhis:

Assign common features for every PSL like:
(Scrap the ratios, they're mostly useless and would make the scale complicated)

Rough skeleton of PSL scale (based on visible bone structure)
1: boneless
2: visible chin(s)
3: some forward growth but no good visible features
4: forward growth but no jaw definition, recessed chin
5: visible but narrow jawline, slightly recessed chin and no zygos,
6: slightly upswinged maxilla , visible jaw/chin and some zygos definition
7: clearly visible low/mid set zygos, prominent jawline
8: high set zygos with eye support, long and broad jawline

Obviously this is just a Skeleton and it's raw AF so it needs more refinement

I think, we should start with pointing out the major prominent features (bone related) and ratios which makes difference like jaw, chin, brow ridge, eye support, maxilla position, forawrd growth, es ratio, facial thirds, facial fifths, bizygomatic/Bigonal ratio, etc (please name more)

Thoughts?
@aestheticallypleasin @Britishlooksmaxxer @jackthenerd @DaddyBigPenis @Gazzamogga

Tagging only those I can think of right now

Make some finer improvements to it, and we're done. I think relying only on bone structure would be a wise idea, the halos can be discussed additionally. Also no need to care about the difference in phenos since all good faces share similar facial features

 

[Gazzamogga]

You're right, an overly comprehensive guide might not be useful and would be in fact hard to follow.

So how about we make a simple scale like rhis:
View attachment 508848
Assign common features for every PSL like:
(Scrap the ratios, they're mostly useless and would make the scale complicated)

Make some finer improvements to it, and we're done. I think relying only on bone structure would be a wise idea, the halos can be discussed additionally. Also no need to care about the difference in phenos since all good faces share similar facial features

jfl at Lima being a 9 and Watson a 10 on that scale

I'll read the thread later and give input as it seems you've put good effort into it