I'm confused on how to rate someone because there is a significant differential in the body and face rating. I'm not sure how you take these two different inputs to come up with an overall rating. I think this might be the sort of question that WSO has a decent chance of providing good answers to.
Here's how it breaks down:
Body: 10/10. Absolutely flawless.
Face: 6.5/10. Kind of cute, but nothing great.
Now, on the binary scale of would/would not smash, she is a clear 1/1.
However, what do you do for the traditional scale? Average the two?
Does anyone here have a better rating methodology?
Before averaging them, I would take my personal preference of which is more important I and give it an appropriate multiplier (maybe face is worth 1.5 more than body.) Honestly though a flawless body and a decent face seems like a pretty good deal overall.
Thread topic reminded me of this little chain I got forwarded this past year: http://dealbreaker.com/2015/11/would-be-kbw-intern-hopes-dave-chappelle…
I think I notice womens' bodies more than face during my day-to-day
Bodies seem to have a greater variance
Nothing a paper bag can't fix.
Well the weighted average (for me) is (.9)(10)+(.1)(6.5) = 9.65, Buddy if it were me, I would have a winner, congrats you lucky SOB. Although this model only works if the face is a minimum 6.
To figure this out I'd take an empirical approach instead of a predetermined one. Take a random sample set of women and determine each of their overall ratings. Then go back and assign separate face and body ratings to each of the women. With these three sets of data I'd a run a quick multivariate regression in excel to get the statistical coefficients (weights) that should be used to extrapolate an overall rating from just face and body ratings assuming that an overall rating can't be arrived at directly
Someone I know is relatively plain in everyday life. She dresses conservatively, so the ten ton nuclear bombs she's holding under those conservative clothes are not apparent. The perfect hip to waist ratio is also not apparent in everyday life. However, a recent bikini incident changed my entire perspective. This makes me believe that both my overall ratings and body ratings that I would use for this analysis would be invalid to use as a comparison. Thoughts on how to correct for this?
Any method no matter how crude is subject to data quality. Garbage in, garbage out
A reliable set of known ratings is crucial here. If you can't get valid ratings through real life women due to ultra conservative dress concealing the goods then I would suggest an alternate data source for women...the internet. Just make sure the ones you rate aren't wearing a burka or snowsuit
If she dresses conservatively and hides that stuff, even better. Surprises are good!
not always.....
disagree. example:
and the absolute worst...
so excuse me if I disagree: surprises are not good.
I think it should be a progressive scale. if her face is kinda cute but her body is fire, that's very different than if her face looks like angela merkel but her body's like jen selter. you would still consider it, but on a binary scale it wouldn't be a definite "oh yeah, I would."
in your case, I'd say a hard 8. it's a lot easier to lose a body than lose a face, props to her for putting in that work.
Haha, Merkel or Yellen
can always turn a pretty face into a hot body, not so much the other way around
touche
But you don't fuck a face. Unless you get really lucky and then you can't see it anyway.
Ha can't argue with that.
It's this simple... (G4 body)
=IF(G4>7.99,(G40.75)+(F40.25),"Hell No")
Ask Sharon. Women are much more critical than men. I'd trust her rating much more than a detailed analysis. Especially because "happy wife, happy life".
I have settled on a rating of about 8.5. Of course, she is now a year older, so I'm not quite sure how that effects all of the variables (even though she basically looks the same).
Thanks for all the help everyone.
Depends....
I would have to rate the face higher and body lower. If this is a long term thing then in the long run child birth is going to wreck that body...and all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't but that THOT back together again.
If it is not then why over complicate it, you already use the binary scale which is fool-proof. Everything else is false precision.
Similique reiciendis minus assumenda sint aut in. Quis numquam eaque corporis quia sed quisquam. Est ut quo ipsa maxime aut. Nostrum inventore id et in. Ut reiciendis nemo asperiores sed in itaque dignissimos.
In laborum earum id animi necessitatibus eius. Vero natus neque deserunt dolorem pariatur veniam. Error aliquid vel et similique dolor in. Et praesentium esse laboriosam et. Earum sapiente quae dolor commodi similique mollitia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Qui cupiditate unde animi vitae optio ut et. Doloribus nihil laborum voluptas accusamus est ipsa minima. Velit ipsum accusamus maxime quis. Rem eveniet perspiciatis culpa accusantium enim. Quod odio voluptatem non omnis vel aliquam.
Ipsum ullam rerum tenetur recusandae. Culpa cumque quasi magnam. Nobis esse fugit magni voluptate ducimus itaque delectus pariatur.
Voluptatem aut aperiam et quas sed. Tempora necessitatibus ullam iste exercitationem quasi.
Odio consequuntur omnis et omnis reprehenderit itaque ad soluta. Fuga ut quia itaque vitae praesentium. Aut saepe qui rerum deserunt repellendus aut non. Sit debitis qui pariatur ab. Culpa voluptas expedita quod aperiam provident.