The 1-10 scale is pointless and inaccurate.
If you're actually good looking a number can't be assigned to your appearance, for example, pic related is numberless
>>23547602
7/10
Myth busted.
>>23547602
Noone on soc is actually good looking though
>>23547612
>assigning numbers to numberless girls
you fell for it
>>23547613
good point
>>23547602
This girl's not even that attractive. Aside from her horrible hairline, her nose and lips look like they've been busted by her boyfriend in their 200sq. ft apartment behind a K-Mart on the Southside of Tampa. What you're showing us is a genetic train wreck.
Get back to smoking your Tumblrweed with your "numeral rating systems are oppresive societal constructs" bullshit.
>>23547628
>implying OP girl is actually attractive enough to be in this fictional, "Numberless" caste of people.
>>23547637
>confusing beauty with attractiveness
stay insecure
>>23547642
Here's another example of a numberless girl.
The 1-10 scale really is for uglies.
>>23547651
Solid 9. The scale is literally Ugly to Holy Shit must bang, so.
>>23547658
>Solid 9
nope, she isn't on the scale.
>>23547664
>Implying you can just make up the rules as you want
>>23547651
>separating beauty and attractiveness
Respect my adjectives, shitlord.
>>23547651
>reposting the jew
shit nigger wtf are you doing
>>23547668
>posting in my thread
>mad at my rules
heh, yew must be knew here
>>23547602
Pointless
>>23547705
Fekkin u wot m8? You must be trolling.
>>23547698
>dat feel will never preggers a beautiful jew girl
Why live
>>23547740
she has 0 traditional jewish features, her family was probably modern converts.
girls that actually look jewish are pretty nasty, i.e
>>23547612
*4/10
>>23547740
It's weird, I don't doubt she's the same person but in this she seems so much more attractive in that 'model' sort of way while the previous pic seems to emphasize her cuteness.
Always interesting to see what a professional photographer can do with the right subject.
>>23547740
>Jewish
>has blue eyes
>high cheekbones
>petite nose
U wot
>>23547751
7/10 = 70%, C, Average, A missed shot in XCOM. It's not a great score, and she's not great, but she's hardly ugly, and 4/10 is literal Downs.
>>23547637
>implying you could do better let alone as good.
>>23547759
It's the camera angles.
The high angle on the first picture makes it look as if you are towering over her, she looks smaller, it changes the viewer's impression of her.
In the second picture the camera height is below her face and angled up. Making her look taller than the viewer, this angle is quite commonly used in modelling as it is good for lengthening legs and displaying clothing. So because the association between the camera angle and modelling exists in the viewers' minds, this photo then looks more "model-ly"
There are other factors involved too, the existence of slight makeup in the second photo and the "heavy eyelids" and lip bite emphasizing sex appeal over cuteness in contrast to the first photo where emphasis is put onto her eyes, they look larger and more saturated along with her freckles (often associated with youth and cuteness) being more visible due to the lack of makeup.
>>23548337
>would they still look good if they were fat
This is how I judge all women.
If the answer is no, then they're either average or below average. OP would be hideous. I can almost see the cat eye glasses and squinty eyes now.
>>23547891
that's not how it works stupid. on the 1-10 scale 5 is average.
>>23548357
What.
What does that have to do with what I was saying. I was just responding to >>23547759
with why the photos gave different feels.
>>23547891
Oh man this explains a lot.
Whenever I am on rate threads I always see people who are below average - average getting rated with 7's. I chalked it up to anons being nice so that they would get nice rates back but I never felt completely satisfied with that conclusion. This helps.
>>23548390
but it's stupid! 5 should absolutely be the average mark.
>>23548402
I agree with you, it is stupid.
>>23548416
It doesn't even make sense. If 7 is average then why are there so many more numbers from 1-10 describing how ugly some one is? 6 is supposed to be ugly?
>>23548368
>>23548390
It's a subjective scale. I use it on here because I don't like to have people flip out over it. Also I really wanted to use that XCOM joke.
>>23548374
Misquoted you.
>>23548445
>>23548445
Yeah man I agree, it doesn't make sense.
5 is average. It simply is.
>>23548660
5 is average. 7 is usually THE average.
Each person has a scale and an attraction per that person. What I find attractive will not be attractive to another. A general scale is not relevant. I like a woman who will tell me no if she doesn't agree, a strong woman but may not be a center fold type.
>>23548667
The average which people rate each other with?
Because those people are wrong.
Protip
Tally up the scores someone gives out then calculate the average
If you get rated 7 by someone who gave out 7.5 on average, then you're a 4.5
Also OP does have a point, in that women don't think by the scale
They think 4 things
1. Repulsive (1-3 on traditional scale)
2. Invisible (4-6)
3. Decent (6-7)
4. Hot (8+)
