PERB In Need of Banner

Rating Scale

Previous Thread Next Thread
A

Ais

New member
Jul 23, 2004
134
0
0
Actually the mean of 1 - 10 is 5. The average of 1-10 would be adding the numbers and dividing by 10 which is acually 5.5 or rounded to 6. So the average of a 1-10 scale is actually 6. I would add "my mathematically challenged friend" but that would just be cheeky. ;)
 
J

Jonesy

Guest
Apr 4, 2005
250
0
0
Ais said:
Actually the mean of 1 - 10 is 5. The average of 1-10 would be adding the numbers and dividing by 10 which is acually 5.5 or rounded to 6. So the average of a 1-10 scale is actually 6. I would add "my mathematically challenged friend" but that would just be cheeky. ;)
Click to expand...
Pendantically you are correct but most assume the scale really starts at 0 and scores up to, and including 1.49, are assigned 1 if we are sticking to integers.

As far a math challenges, I'm game. That was my Ph.D. minor.
 
M

Massagegirl

Banned
Mar 25, 2003
891
1
0
Ais said:
Actually the mean of 1 - 10 is 5. The average of 1-10 would be adding the numbers and dividing by 10 which is acually 5.5 or rounded to 6. So the average of a 1-10 scale is actually 6. I would add "my mathematically challenged friend" but that would just be cheeky. ;)
Click to expand...
Ah ha! So the truth comes out! (Zero isn't a number is it?)

That is the reason, the only reason, that I am interested Jonesy, is to get to the truth! I hate that there is no standard version that everyone can agree on! I read the reviews so I know who to recommend if I have a client who is travelling out of town or wants more than I offer and I can't trust the numbers at all! One camp is giving 8's and 9's, the other says no there are no 8's and 9's, those are actually 5's and 6's. It's annoying and instead of joining one camp or the other I would like us all to agree on a standard version...maybe in the middle or ratings mean nothing!

Average in math isn't as easy to translate into real life when dealing with humans or animals. I used to judge livestock which must be compared to one another, I couldn't just look at a horse and say "this horse is an 8" or "this lamb is a 9.5" Everyone would be like wtf is she on? If I did give a horse a 5 it would not be a nice looking horse, to be sure, so I would not call it average.

Maybe the numbers should reflect other scales we use, if I give a numeric value to them.

10=Excellent
9=very good
8=good
7=above average
6=average
5=fair
4=poor
3=very poor
2=inadequate
1=terrible

Just an idea, it beats no idea.
 
L

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
El Tigre said:
But this is my idea of a '10' in looks....very few even come close......but who knows....the real Sylvia could be a '2.3187'........ :rolleyes:
___________________

<img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-4/1001685/08.jpg" width=966 height=645>
Click to expand...
FBB rating:

Face = 7.5 {hair included}
Bum = 9.0
Tits = 6.0
 
J

Jonesy

Guest
Apr 4, 2005
250
0
0
Not bad MG. Not bad at all! Here are some modifications that would make it near as good as it could be here.

10=Excellent - a rarity. One of best looking woman you have ever seen. Stops traffic.
9=very good. Rare but you see one a week or so. Best looking girl you went to school with kind of thing.
8=good. More common. Still hot and if an actress, people would say she was gorgeous.
7=above average. Definitely pretty. See a few dozen a day if you walk around downtown. Still turns heads.
6=fair - attractive in a different way but not a classic beauty
5=average - wouldn't turn heads one way or other.
4=poor - something isn't quite right but you can't put finger on it. Enough beer makes this a 5
3=very poor - you can put your finger on it, even beer is challenged
2=inadequate - you can put a bag on it as this is beyond beer
1=terrible - there are not enough bags at Safeway. Rare luckily for all involved including the 1

Just an idea, it beats no idea.
 
M

memyselfandI

Well-known member
May 19, 2004
712
543
93
Knew a dude who had the most fucked up way to rate women ever...they were all "hot" or "dogs"...the guy had no middle. Was really weird....

And as two side notes:

Never judge these actressess models by their pics. Imagine how anyone would look with perfectly done hair and makeup and clothes, and then get a professional photographer to shoot a couple of hundres pics, and then they take the best ones, and then they airbrush them as well...(well, for magazines...)

Still dont' get the deal with Angelina Jolie...good looking, but not all that and then some...but I think I'm in the minority on that one.
 
J

Jonesy

Guest
Apr 4, 2005
250
0
0
S.G. Gibson said:
This is the stupidest thread I've read on PERB. I give it a 0. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You don't read many threads then.

If this is stupider than some washed up SP who wants some fake guys to help her choose another name than you may have a point. However, I don't think you do.

This thread is dumber though than the 63 I have seen about Michael Jackson.
 
S

S.G. Gibson

Retired
Dec 29, 2003
375
0
0
Stupidest is perhaps an overstatement :eek: but I stand by my rating of 0.

I'm no math Phd but aren't measures of central tendency a part of statistics not linear algebra?
 
J

Jonesy

Guest
Apr 4, 2005
250
0
0
S.G. Gibson said:
Stupidest is perhaps an overstatement :eek: but I stand by my rating of 0.

I'm no math Phd but aren't measures of central tendency a part of statistics not linear algebra?
Click to expand...
Again, pendantically yes but we were dealing with a linear scale and, for the most part, integers so why confuse the issue. Next you will want us to determine whether the ratings are normally distributed or if we need to use a t-function.

Fact remains, the scale can go as low as 0 (I guess) and goes up to 10. It is not a magnitude scale (e.g. Richter or Moment Magnitude) where an 8 would be 10 times as good as a 7, it is linear. Hence, linear algebra.

Call it what you want, I like numeric theory and infinite series - statistics are boring and predictable.
 
S

S.G. Gibson

Retired
Dec 29, 2003
375
0
0
I'm not sure what pedantic means but from the context it sounds like I'm correct.

I brought up statistics because on a scale of 1-10 claiming 5 is average assumes a normal distribution. If the distribution is skewed to the right then the mode would be higher than the mean explaining why there are so many reviews of 8's and 9's. This explanation is plausible and probably correct since in my experience every girl I have met in this business is beautiful.
 
Last edited:
R

rollerboy

Teletubby Sport Hunter
Dec 5, 2004
903
0
0
San Francisco
Jonesy said:
Pendantically you are correct but most assume the scale really starts at 0 and scores up to, and including 1.49, are assigned 1 if we are sticking to integers.
Click to expand...
Doh! You did say 1-10 in your assertion, Jonesy, not 0-10. Don't sweat it, everybody makes a gaffe or two like that.

I'm not sure that rounding up to 6 makes any more sense than rounding down to 5, so let's say that 5.5 should be the average. It's all convention anyway.

Here's an idea, we have a simple template with a few standard fiducials (Anjelina Jolie, Katie Holmes, and a few others). Reviewers can optionally put their ratings out there, and we can use it as a calibrating curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Vancouver Escorts
Top Bottom