standard of beauty by which TER providers should be compared to. If your a MILF or BBW or anorexic or Martian you can be a 10 when compared to others of your type but you can't be a 10 compared to a Playboy babe. You have to lose a point or 2 if you don't meet the high bar of Playboy.
When you see a provider ask yourself how she compares to a Playboy centerfold. If you would be honest there would be a lot less 10s. As it is now a reviewer can meet a once in a lifetime every week. That's ridiculous.

by which all women are measured. I find A cups repulsive but some of Scoed's pics are 10s, but only compared to other A cups, not to an objective standard.
You want to use the Rubenesque woman as the standard to measure all women?

Guys-

How do you decide what is one-in-a-lifetime?  Model material?  Attractive? etc?

What if she has a gorgeous face but OK body/ Or hot body but average face?  How do you rate her?

Do you deduct points for cellulite, stretch marks?  Or can a woman with these traits still get a 10?

just wondering.

and i still love  a handsome women.

When they give a very low performance score, the looks rating is usually less than what others have given her. Sometimes much less.

As you may have heard before, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you think may be attractive, the other guy may not. What you think may be once in a lifetime, the other guy may not.

When I conclude the scoring system, I do not conclude base on one sample, but the majority of samples. If, they majority of reviewers are consistent with the scores, then, she deserved the scores.

What you get from a once in a lifetime from one provider, the other dude may yield different results. The only thing I can suggest is, rate her on what you think she is worth. And, other hobbyist can conclude your scores base on other reviews.

BTW, beauty will always be ambiguous. And, there will never be a definitive answer. If you feel that she totally satisfied you, great, give her a high score. Even if you think she looked once in a lifetime, great, give her that. But, keep in mind, the other dude may think that she is a seven, because, its his "opinion".

Obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My eyes see things a lot different than yours. I personally would never give a lady with big fake tits a 10. On the other hand, many of the small boobed met art models that scoed posts pictures of, would get 10s from me. There will never be agreement on looks ratings. Different features appeal to different people.

campaign buttons on TER.  Totally indiscriminate, and sometimes (more often than you might want to belive) guys are pressured into scoring 10's in looks.

I saw a girl a few years ago whose profile was heavily-laden with 10's in looks, and I would have scored her a 6.

To your question: I'd score a 10 in looks to a woman if she was flawless and, IMHO, flawless means no stretch marks, no cellulite, toned and athletic, with a beautiful face.  I'd let "respectable" breast enhancements slide, though disprportional enhancements, to me, take away.

For what it's worth, in my opinion a MILF can be a 10 if she fits the above.  I'm in my late 40's, and they're some of my favorites.

While I don't factor this into the looks score, a nice, little, well-trimmed landing strip is a sexy plus in my book.

THAT's my standard.  Out of 70-80 providers, I've only met one so far.

just what the hell are you smoking? please DON'T share! it clearly kills the little grey cells.

no...   no.... no, you're right, there is a "model 10" that lives under 2 bell jars at the National Institute for Standards and Technology.

you guys that cannot tell the difference between something that is intrinsically subjective and intrinsically objective are a never ending source of drollery and amusement.

thanks for brightening my day....

(5) "Plain" zaftig, or rail thin, No outstanding aesthetic attributes.

(6) "Nice" Plain; but with a cherry on top.....somewhere.

(7) "Attractive" Look it up in the dictionary!

(8) "Really Hot" Attractive; but with notable attention to looking alluring as possible.

(9) "Model Material" Depends on what modeling age, body type, or fetish criteria you're using as a standard.

(10) "Once in Lifetime" Absolutely, positively fulfills every mainstream societal as well as personally conceived prerequisite of female beauty.

How could a woman be a 10 in "Appearance" with noticeable stretch marks for Chrissake?!! She might rate a "Once in a lifetime" fuck; but aesthetically that shit is about as attractive as a turd in a punch bowl, as well as the antithesis of the claim.

One man's 10 is another man's 7.   The most important thing is for the revier to highlight if the photos in her ad are recent and accurate.

I know what I consider to be 8, 9, or 10 when I look at their photos.   As long as that is what shows up at the door, I will be happy.  If someone shows up who is 10-20 pounds heavier and 10 years older, I will not be happy regardless of how many 10s she already got for appearance

It appears you are speaking of appearance ratings. My ratings are my opinion. It's subjective. I like what I like. Would I deduct points because of cellulite or stretch marks? I would if it was bad enough to distract from her overall look. I have given 3 providers 10's. One was in appearance. To me she is drop dead gorgeous. One was in performance. Damn that was good and her attitude notched it up. One was 10 for both categories. She has many reviewers that agree with me and I stand by my ratings.
I don't consider the Ratings descriptors as much. There are many 10's in the world. I've been fortunate enough to meet two of them as far as appearance is concerned. One site I review on asks for a face appearance rate and a body rate. For TER I'll average that and make it my TER appearance rating.
What's important? Symmetry (this includes breasts size enhanced or not). Smile. Condition of hair ( color & length isn't a consideration). Softness of skin. Condition of finger and toe nails (don't have to have a fancy mani & pedi). After saying all this though it comes down to my gut feeling. Many others will do the same. It's what they like and it comes down to their gut. In the vernacular, It ain't never gonna change.
To the guy that said Playboy model is the standard. Those photos are touched up. Maybe you have seen one of them in person and she met your standard. Most of them have something that isn't perfect but you wouldn't know it from the photos.

1) The commonly accepted measurement of super model size as being 5'11 and hip size 34~36 or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermodel

2) A fat & chubby size 40 is not model material or one in a life time by any means no matter how much people think "beauty is in the eyes of the fucking beholder". Uh No. There are degrees.

3) However, her looks depend on a lot on how she carries herself. Ladies who are smiling and friendly tend to look prettier than ladies who sit there looking like she's just woke up and or with a bitchy attitude. There are actual studies done that prove this to be true.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.joep.2004.10.004
If her attitude is excellent and has a great personality, a 9 could go up to a 10.

4) Depends on how much cellulite and stretch marks there are. If it looks like sign of aging then I might deduct 0.5 ~ 1 point since I am in my 30s and find 20-somethins more attractive. Luckily, ladies can cover these up with make up or something. There are treatments for these too thanks to modern medicine.

However, the rating is decided the moment I walk in or see her at the lobby. It takes me maybe a second or two to come to a number. I haven't had a case where I would change the number after that first impression. If she looks drop dead gorgeous while she has her cloths on and completely captivated my senses, I probably wouldn't mind a physical blemish or two. Us guys are no idiots, not perfect ourselves, and we know that imperfections exist... so if she's 'close enough' I round it off.  

If she looks great, her attitude is great, and completely drowned me in her beauty by actuating all my five senses from touch sight taste smell etc, she just might reach that once-in-a-lifetime mark.

Then again, it isn't all that hard to drown me when I'm a little tipsy. Fortunately, I am very sober before meeting a lady.



Christy Turlington would be a 9 or 10 in her 20s. Now sure about now, probably still good looking.

No reason to waste money on an unattractive one...

And there exists a commonly accepted size for supermodels that majority agrees upon.

Majority wins and that's what defines the 'standard'.

I would say that if a girl fits the definition of a supermodel, she gets a 9 (not a 10)
then we go from there and see if she's got more to offer.

To reach a 10 requires something more.  Maybe that's where the subjective/objective/beholder crap comes in, but only to a certain degree.  A fat ass elephant is no supermodel by any means.

Oh come on!  Have you ever met a woman with NO stretch marks?  Is that even possible?

Then again I haven't watched Hundo either.  

And no, I prefer a beautiful women... not a handsome one. lol

Not into transgender, although if the TS looked exactly like Christy Turlington in her 20s and I am NOT met with a "Crying Game"-style surprises (ie: finding a package after I get in her pants), it would make it a bit easier to accept the TS deal.

With the exception of a few with very high standars, most guys are pretty forgiving of flaws and will round up a ladies appearance score if she performed well.  And even if she has a pretty face with an average body (stretch marks, loose butt, cellulite) she can still score 9 or 10.

Or a smokin hot body with an OK face still can get a high score.  Good to know!

simply because I know my preferences are toward thin supermodel types
not the slightly thicker ones that some guys prefer. But since most guys scored her 9, didn't feel wanna be the low scoring guy especially since I planned on seeing her again. lol

Many playboy models don't look like 10's going into shoots until they see a professional hair dresser and make up artist,  even after that 100's of photos are taken and narrowed down to a select few that are better then the rest.  These models are usually air brushed before a shoot anyway.  Using pictures in magazine to compare womens looks just does not make sense to me.  I'm sure most of us have seen the girl next door shoots, most of these ladies look closer to an 8 before playboy finishes with them.  Perhaps we should base our reviews on woman that you have actually seen not just in playboy that have spent 3 hrs with pros selecting makeup to outfits, then pros taking hours worth of pictures to find several to publish.  Playboy pics in my mind are closer to an ideal not a standard.  

One lady would get a reduced score because age has diminished her looks.  She was in Playboy.  Another would get a lower score because she packed on too many pounds.  I haven't seen the 3rd one in a while but she's still around and her pictures still look good, so maybe she'd still be there.  A 10 is subjectively objective.  She should be over the type that turns heads when she enters a room.  For stretch marks, etc to not reduce the score, she needs to be so hot that you never notice them.  If you see them, she's not a 10.

He uses the line Handsome women

Of course every woman & man has their share. But to be a "Once in a lifetime" specimen you can't have a satellite photo of Union Station embossed down your hips/thighs/boobs etc.

In 28 reviews I've yet award a "10" in Appearance.

When a provider equals the below I'll award my first.

They are a commonly accepted measurement that defines what is considered to be a supermodel.

Face may lie and need professional touchups but body measurements are more or less a widely accepted standard in the modeling community. While NIST didn't define these as a standard, it is what majority accepts it as one, takes interest, and the reason why those supermodels are popular.

since it's "once in a lifetime" what would be left to look for in life?  never given a 10 -- yet.

I agree that a playboy model wouldn't look it without two hours of profssional makeup.  

However, there has been some very pretty girls who did not need much make up and still looked great.

Sometimes I don't get why ladies don't pretty themselves before a session.

a half-dozen "10's" for performance.  How did I know when to give a "10", I guess it is gut instinct rleated to I can't take my mind off of her, etc.

I have great difficulties rating both appearance and performance.  I try and decide based on TER's descriptions what number to assign.  I am not like a lot of you in that my experience is limited. But I am working on it.   If I totally forget that she is really performing a service should I not give a 9?  And if she looked hot but not a model type then shouldn’t that be an 8?  I just keep going by gut feeling and the TER descripts.

Recently I read a review where the reviewer gave a 6 and a 6 but when I read the words I was sold on the lady.  I checked his many other reviews and he never gave more than an 8, ever.  I could see her pics on her website and he did say that she looked like her pics.  I was thinking she is HOT!  So his ratings didn’t sell me, but his words did.  

Really I think the words or the most important part but some guys write better than others.  So I just read a batch of reviews and try and build my opinion from many reviews rather than just one.

And taking it one step further.  What if you go back and things are different?   She re-did her hair?  Wore less makeup?, lost weight? and had a much better attitide or a new trick in the mix?  Do you re- write your review?

there are statistical fallacies in the argument. one is the post facto fallacy another is the argument from the general to the particuler a third is failure to consider selection effects. they underly most of the nonesense that is posted on the board about "objectivity" in ratings.

there is going to be a spread in how any given model is rated. a gal whose ratings average 9.2 with a standard deviation of ~1 is still going to have a ~2% chance of somebody giving her a 5 or a 6, a 5% chance of someone giving her a 7, a 12% chance of an 8, a 26% chance of a 9 even though 55% rate her a 10. (this assumes an underlying beta distribution with the mean and standard deviation as stated. i think the standard deviations are reasonable. there are some folks considered supermodels that i would rank as a 4.)

similarly a gal who is rated a 6 with a standard deviation of 1.5 can only be expected to have 25% of her ratings actually be a 6. 5% will give her a 3, 11% will give a 4, 23% will give a 7, 13% an 8 3% a 9.

so one should expect rather wide variations in scores. arguing that they "should not" exist is simply throwing away the ddata because it disagrees with one's prejudice. it is totally illlegitimate to argue that a gal most rate as a 9 should never get a 6 and that a 6 should never get a 9.

lastly the selection effect. people pick what appeals to them. folks are going to go for a gal thea they think is an 8 or a 9 or a 10 for them. beauty IS in the eye of the beholder every goddamn day of the week. attempts to argue that there is some objective standard... well SHOW ME THE STANDARD! where is it at NIST? LOL!

of course if you all are just joking and bitching, OK. but come on... don't take it too seriously.

i'm having fun and this was a fun post to write.

Mangina alert!!

Your 7 might be my 10 and your 10 might be my 7. You will never get an agreement on that. On the other hand I don't think anyone's 4 should be a 10, but a 4 to me could be a 7 to someone else. Everyone has their own opinion of beauty. There is no "objective standard." When I search reviews I look for looks ratings of 7 to 10 and I look for pictures and check the profile to see if the "pictures are accurate," then I make my decision.

and I'm not gonna quit the hobby until I find one. And then I still won't quit.

You tend to be on par with the avg review score with others who have seen the same girl. I haven't searched through all your 91 reviews lol but
Have you seen any lady that has 20+ reviews and has avg 9.3+ rating?  I'm sure you would meet your first ten.

Ratings help but the subjectivity of it makes it impossible to rely on ratings only. Read the reviews, it's much more helpful. It's smart to check the other reviews of the reviewer too. What you did there is the way to do it.

If the differences were enough to warrant a new review yes, write one. It will replace the first one you wrote.
You won't receive any VIP days for the rewrite though.

You can see from this discussion there is a wide variety of opinions on the TER ratings. It will always be subjective and there will always be a difference of opinion and someone will always be gripping about it.

A providers day to day life can change her apperance rating. Was she happy and having a great day? She might be far more radiant than if she was not feeling well or down about something. I think that attitude is part of apperance as well. I don't find a hottie with attitude nearly as attractive as a sweet chick with a good demeanor. I know TER has a seperate rating for attitude, but it does affect how a provider "appears". It all relates to the overall experience.

And you have waaaay too much time on your hands lol

How many average 9.2 ladies with 20+ reviews have a 5 or 6 in their reviews?  Name TWO ladies from top 100 that has a 9.2 average score with a 5 or 6 in appearance in her reviews. According to your pseudo statistics, there should be 2 of those scores for every 100 reviews she has.

Bet you will have a very very hard time finding them.  Part of the reason is that guys who find them unattractive don't book with her. lol

Also, now that you got me started, your definition of STANDARD is not all that standard either. Try to define 1 meter.

Try to define 1 second...

Can you even do that?   Nope.

People gather together and have to agree on something, like a piece of bar that sits in france (or was it england) museum for the 'meter standard'. As for 1 second, they use physical characteristics of a hydrogen atom. Yup, pulled out of nowhere cuz length and time is also very very relative.

Yet 1 meter and 1 second can be defined when we don't care about the nanoscale effects of zooming in too deep... or macroscopic effects of zooming out too widely. In this zone, a standard of 1 meter and 1 second can be used effectively to measure time and length with reasonable precision.

No such thing as a standard unless the majority of the area (and era you are in) agrees on and accepts it, and that was precisely my point.  If a popular celebrity is considered hot by majority, then she becomes the objective standard otherwise most people wouldn't be taking so much interest in her and she wouldn't be raking in millions.

Of course, there are degrees to this too which is why one must go by several most popular iconic and symbolic celeb of each era (through out history, perception changes... but there is a definite iconic symbol for that period). Universal perceptions common to all human cultures, social aspects, and individual preferences can be averaged out and have been done so to come up with a 'standard' of this era as to what is considered 'physically attractive'.  

Surprise, surprise, it IS possible to figure out what is considered to be the standard for physical attractiveness for each era throughout history.  There is a reason why models try to fit into that category: because the majority thinks it's beautiful. It doesn't matter what ~1% of the outliers think because they don't define the majority for that time frame and culture.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that majority of men prefer young women with bodily / facial symmetry that has a common denominator. A number of university studies found that ideal proportions for a women's face, and discovered what majority considers to be an attractive women by varying the distance between eyes, between eyes and mouth, different drawings of a women's face. Don't know all the details but it was found that women with a head-width versus distance between eye ratio of 46%, head-length versus eye-to-mouth distance ratio of 36%  are considered attractivee by the majority (widely accepted today).

There's also the waist-to-hip ratio. Different cultures have different "standards" for what they consider to be ideal ratio. .6 in china. 0.8~0.9 in America.
Leg to Bogy ratio exists as well.  In britain and america, men find that women with long legs are the most attractive. They put a number to this too, 40% longer than their body. Most men in china during the ancient days also prefered women smaller feet, hence the practice of foot binding.

Again, there is an accepted standard which is viewed as physically attractive. Deviate from this too much and a women won't be considered 'model material' by the *majority*. A small fraction always exists that disagree, but there's no point claiming that since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, there shouldn't be a standard because there IS a widely accepted standard as defined by each of these university studies for each era and in different cultures.

There's a definite evolutionary influence to beauty and it may be closely linked to fertility and biological progression.  


I'm sure you would agree that this girl isn't model material... or are you going to say there's a 2% chance that she'll really be considered a 10/10 (aside from a guy writing a shill review or out of friendship)  

I feel that "standard" is defined by the overwhelming majority.  In fact, I challenge anyone to dispute this definition of 'standard'. lol

If 100 people says she's absolutely beautiful and I'm the only one who says she's good enough,
then I'm the odd one out.

While I'm all for being honest, there's also no need to apply my preferences so strictly to the point where it may hurt the girl's feelings, especially when she's pretty enough for me to see her again and don't wanna risk the DNS list (yes it happens!). lol  

I don't normally repeat 8 but in this case she was pretty enough for me to wanna see her again, hence the motivation to be 'objective'.  

i think the 1 standard deviation is about right for a given model being evaluated by a large sample of guys. the statistics are NOT pseudo. they are a a valid model as long as 1 standard deviation is reasonable.

the reason reviews don't reflect that is due to selection effects: guys will book with folks they find attractive. it is in my post and you seem to agree with it. the correct conclusion is that reviews CANNOT have an objective appearance score BECAUSE of selection effects.

so the complaining and whining about how someone else grades is just that: complaining and whining.

1) the review scores are narrower than they should be for any reasonable statistical model and
2) STILL guys whine about other folks having tastes that differ from their own.

another narrowing is for folks who are not model beautiful... a guy who found someone who averages a 7 to be exquisitely beautiful would hesitate to giver her a 10 since he would be subject to ridicule and harrassment: another selection effect.

so any pretense that TER review scores could ever possibly be objective is simply laughable. male tastes are too diverse. women's beauty is too diverse. there are too many selection effects involved for the ratings to be anything but hopelessly flawed and subjective indicators of how the reviewer felt about that encounter.

oh... using a single instance (like your pic) is another fallacious argument that has no statistical basis. it is fallacious to argue that a particular score should really be a something else. or that a particular instance would never be scored in a way that is contrary to how you score it.

but the pholders of "objective" appearance scores are naive and delusional. they generally just want everybody else to score the way they would. they probably wonder why everybody else in the country doesn't vote exactly as they would either.... ah well.... it is clueless, in an amusing and charming way.

Munch on these studies and tell me if beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder?

There are only 'degrees', statistical variance you might say... Beauty isn't all that in the beholder after all. At least that's what the studies show.  (see links below)

You aren't going to find many guys giving 10s to a fat ass. It just isn't accepted in today's society. You MIGHT find 1 crazy dude who may give her a 10... but the chances of that happening would be something like a bunch of monkeys randomly typing on a type writer and coming up with shakespeare's work. Understand that "majority rules" in vast many cases and the majority are the ones who set the objective standard.

Statistically speaking, when there are about 4000 carefully random samples studied in a research, that would represent about 4 billion people at a 99% confidence level and 2% interval. Well, gosh darn it, that just happens to be right around the global population!

You can not come to an intelligent conclusion based on stats alone due to the exact reasons you stated. There are many things that can act as variables. That's what detailed scientific studies are for and hundreds of such studies creamed that utter "beholder" nonsense AGES ago. There are only statistical 'degrees' to the beholder business.

It IS indeed possible to determine an objective standard for a particular period in history and for a particular country/culture/state/city/etc... (as detailed as you want it to go). THIS is what science does: it kicks the myth in its ass and brings in some truth to light.

Your statistics knowledge might be commendable but you are clearly applying it to the wrong situation.  The small fraction who deviate from the majority are the "outliers" (ie: the minority) and do not represent the whole. I'm sure their's a distribution of the % of outliers and what not.

However, guess why chubbier women were perceived as more beautiful during the ancient times? Because the majority thought so and that was the "objective standard" during that particular time in that particular culture.


Munch on these studies and Google what 'majority' means...

Is beauty really in the eyes of the beholder?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6709/full/396321a0.html

Waist to Hip Ratio study
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf

Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513807000906

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.1289/abstract;jsessionid=02978DFC3A8554117D3335D51154475E.d03t04

"Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner"
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/11/reviews/000611.11tattert.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1236636/Skin-deep-Beautiful-faces-Miss-Average-proportions.html

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/11/5/154

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8721.00190

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/11/5/154

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/your-look/story/2011/03/Beautiful-people-are-happier-study-finds/45500558/1

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/kohl.htm

http://www.angle.org/doi/full/10.2319/122707-605.1

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616660500035090

http://www.uoregon.edu/~sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c09CEforrequests.pdf

This is what real science is all about. Debunking age old 'myths'.

Perfect face dimensions measured
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8421076.stm

PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN ADAPTATIONIST PERSPECTIVE
http://pages.uoregon.edu/sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c09CEforrequests.pdf

Real science... not myth.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.00249.x/abstract

Abstract

Women's waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) varies with age, and a lower WHR is associated with a higher estrogen-to-androgen ratio and possibly higher fecundity, at least in some populations. Consequently, it has been argued that selection has favored a universal male preference for a low female WHR. In previous studies using frontal pictures, men in the United States preferred a low WHR of 0.7, but men among Hadza hunter–gatherers and a few other small-scale societies preferred higher ratios. Unlike the actual WHR of women, measured with a tape around the waist and the hips and buttocks, the WHR in frontal pictures excludes the buttocks. Because frontal WHR gives only a partial picture, we used profile views of women to measure men's preferences for the profile WHR. Hadza men preferred a lower profile WHR (more protruding buttocks) than American men. Since Hadza men preferred higher frontal WHR but lower profile WHR, and since both contribute to the actual WHR, these results imply there is less disparity between American and Hadza preferences for the actual WHR of real women. We suggest men's preferences vary with the geographic variation in the shape of women who have wider hips in some populations and more protruding buttocks in others.

and defeat the aspect of my argument which is expressed by "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is if they would imply that the variance of male response (variance in rating) is zero. to be precise the truth of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is simply; variances in response exist and are non zero.

therefore: another nice debate ploy but which is completely misleading.

the only way to defeat my argument is to show that the variance in male responses in rating beauty on a scale from 1 to 10 is very much less than 1 on that scale. these don't do that.

nice try, very industrious of you. but not arguments that imply that the variance in ratings should be so small that any reviewer or group of reviewers could legitimately criticize anyone's rating.

the EXISTENCE of OUTLIERS is part of reality and must be taken into account, not rejected. the failure to take into account real world outliers, to discount them and toss them away is reminiscent of the financial whizzes who ignored large risk outliers and brought about the financial collapse and current great recession.

the variance among ideals in different cultures and time periods is actually support for my argument that ratings are subjective. if they were objective cultural variations would not exist.

again, nice try. but scientifically defective. they don't argue for zero variance.

now there are folks who cannot tolerate the size of variances that are found in the record and in nature. they dream of building camps and making the "outliers" all go away.

good luck with that.

You still haven't Googled the term "majority" and confidence level, I see.

And DUH, "Objective standard" also comes with a certain degree of (+-%) statistical variance as with any measurement taken.  The act of measurement is never precise hence it comes with a degree of uncertainty.
This degree of error can and have always been possible to be taken in to account, so it's not like taking a crap shoot and wondering blindly. Your argument of zero variance, does not apply in this case once again. You're trying waaay too hard and making zero sense, where did you learn your stats?  

nope, you are still trying to weasel out

the existence of a mean score IS evidence of an objective standard ONLY "COLLECTIVELY", it is  illegitimate to argue that outliers should be thrown away capriciously as that UNDERESTIMATES the variance.

the existence of a non negligible variance shows that on an individual basis "Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder."

it makes perfect sense to anyone who understands measurement statistics, which you apparently do not.

you equate variance with error, INCORRECTLY. there are other sources of variance. there can be intrinsic variance without there being any error. you want "majority to rule" and variance that is part of reality to be artificially decreased.

you are a clever and skilled debater and undoubtedly will persuade many of the few who read this thread. however a beta distribution model is natural for appearance ratings. i have shown that with a very modest variance of 1 unit there is a non negligible probability that there will be outliers several several units away: a 7 on the average SHOULD have a few 10 scores even if the variance is only 1.

you haven't dealt with that fact. you don't like it. you have an artificial sense that the variance should be tighter, you want it to be tighter, and you will ignore any statistics model that shows you are wrong.

majority doesn't rule reality. Nature rules. naturally occuring variance cannot be legislated to be zero any more than the value of pi can be legislated. attempts to "standardize" ratings by beating up on the folks who are outlier raters are nothing other than attempts to legislate the natural variation in appearance preference to be smaller than it is.

good luck with that! you may need to build camps to isolate and re-educate all those outlier reviewers who don't see things the way you do. that is the time honored way the majority disposes of uncomfortable outliers.

You haven't said anything about all those studies. Who has more credibility? hundreds of university studies that figured out what most people consider to be "ideal attractiveness" or your crude attempt at applying statistics to a scoring system that is already largely affected by selection effects?

You falsely assume your statistics to hold true with TER scores and contradict yourself once more by claiming selection effects render it practically useless. Then you reiterated your false assumptions once again. Lol

Note that I'm not referring to TER scores when I'm referring to "objective standard" here but the fact that it is possible to figure out what the majority considers to be attractive. There is a range, and researchers got it down to a science, of what physical characteristics constitutes "good looks" that the majority can agree upon. this is considered to be the objective standard.

There will always be a distribution and the out liters are still the minority. Majority defines the standard. It isn't rocket science, really.

because i am OK with them and i see them as either beside the point or supporting my position to the extent that they report intrinsic variances. they don't help your case AT ALL! LOL!

my model was never intended to apply to to a scoring system with selection effects but rather to an underlying objectively real process in which scoring is done WITHOUT selection effects. the application to TERs scoring system would have to include the many selection effects that artificially narrow variance. i'm sorry you failed to grasp that.

so i have not contradicted myself. you are, skilled master debater that you are, trying to put contradictions into my mouth. a nice debate tactic but no more.

my assumptions have nowhere been shown by you to be false. what you fail to grasp is that your "majority rules" or what the majority finds to be attractive can only be determined through a process that contains individual variances.

statistically, including individual variances, the collective determines the mean and the variance for any particular model. you still fail to recognize that if "majority rules" then individuals can't score. that is the fundamental contradiction in your self contradiction in your position.

you want a process where the mean is some number and the variance is zero. that is never going to happen. that is not "objective" determination of a standard that is tyrannical excision of legitimate and real world individual variation.

you forget that while the collective defines the mean it also defines a variance.

Take it to chat, PM's, email, or anywhere but the board.  Nobody else cares who is right at this point, probably including both of you.

I love a good debate about nothing. And there is out-liners. Most men enjoy the photos I put up but I have got complaints about age, breast size, race, and the fact some think they are too thin. They are the minority of the comments I get, but I do get them. To MP his complaints are valid even if nick and most others loves the photos I post. In my opinion I have yet to find a "ten" to post as none I have found are the most attractive I have seen as I doubt I have seen many more then a million women and I would not rate them as such. They are "nines" model material.

To me words have meaning and to get a "ten" they most be the most attractive woman in a room with a million women in it. I only met one lady that fits that bill and she works in a fast food joint and does not provide. I give "nines" only to those that are able to make a living on looks alone and not needing  to provided sex for a living as they literally could be a model. Thus most models are "nines" not "tens". As I have said not one lady I have posted has been a "ten"

A "eight" is a lady that would turn the majority of men's heads including mine. A "seven" is a woman most men would find attractive and I find hot. A "six" is a woman I find attractive but most may not. I don't mind a few extra pounds but many do. A "five" is a lady that is not ugly but does not excite me. Four or less I am not going to review as I will not book to start.

I find myself attracted to a large variety of women but the I post photos are photos are women I feel most men would be into. Most would not appreciate the full spectrum of ladies I like the looks of so I restrict my photos for the most part to women that most everyone would like to fuck though it is clear there is more then a few that they are not there first choice proving Claudius42310 posts and debunking Drunk³ argument.

Sorry LP for continuing Claudius42310 and Drunk³ argument. To make up for it I will post a photo of a "nine". It is from Met-Art.com and is of Natalia G. Someone once said us mangina's are soft graders, as I am a mangina, do you think I am a soft grader by giving her a "nine"? I don't think so.