• key
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      Too many eyes but not fat or disfigured. 4/10.

      The whole thing is designed to allow them to call people (especially women) “mid”. They arbitrarily chose to use a gaussian distribution pattern so they had an excuse not to give anyone a score beyond 6s.

      But real answer is be a hugely successful fashion model who the sub creator found attractive. Then their “objective rating standards” would include arbitrary criteria to bundle your face in. The whole sub could be replaced with a trivial ML model if it were actually about just giving their “objective” ratings. The internal weights used by the ML model would make about as much sense as the crap spouted in the screenshot.

      • Kbin_space_program
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d note that almost all of the headshots there have a lot of makeup, and the named ones are almost certainly professional makeup.

        You don’t even see light makeup until the 7s and 6.5 range. Damn neckbeard(s?) don’t even know what a woman actually looks like, and apparently expect women to pay for a professional cosmetologist to do them up before they leave the house.

        Edit: it might be an amusing experiment to post those given a “9.5”, but from a shot where they have their normal day to day “face” on and see what rank they get. Or at least how long until its deleted.

        • @smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To be fair, 8.5 is marked as 1 in 3000, meaning that 2999/3000 women look worse. Even 6.0 is marked as “Top 15%”.

          So definitely not something they “expect” most women to look like.

      • @smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        I wonder how many people would actually sort them similar to how they’re sorted in the first picture.

        Because to me the distribution of attractive people between 5.0 and 10 seems to be completely random.

    • @Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      There is the tiniest, infinitesimal amount of value in the statement that, likely because of the way we’re all graded in school, we don’t really use the full range of a 1-10 scale for attractiveness, and are sorta only really saying ugly, mediocre, attractive, or model.

      There is zero value in saying that that’s an issue and the solution is a psychopathic and dehumanizing system.