What's offending me is
that I'm currently losing to about 3 guys whom, with all due respect, I view as entirely within my league!
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:04, archived)
that I'm currently losing to about 3 guys whom, with all due respect, I view as entirely within my league!
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:04, archived)
Women tend to be rated more harshly on there it appears.
And they get a lot more ratings.
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:06, archived)
And they get a lot more ratings.
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:06, archived)
Of the ones that are currently rated on there
I'd be third from top or bottom. I'm currently a 6.2 on there.
Personally I was expecting to be closer to 2.6, there must be some generous or partially sighted people who rated me highly.
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:05, archived)
I'd be third from top or bottom. I'm currently a 6.2 on there.
Personally I was expecting to be closer to 2.6, there must be some generous or partially sighted people who rated me highly.
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:05, archived)
I don't know how other people do it
but I have a probably-not-unique voting system:
baby/children in picture: +1
Slightly funny looking but literate: -1 for looks but +1 for literacy = average vote
Exceptionally good looking but obvious fuckwit: -2
Gun in picture: -3
Pleasant but not exceptional: 5 (ie a vote of 5)
Can't see eyes (sunglasses or looking away): 1 (ie a vote of 1 - fuck you, why should I rate your looks when I can't see them?)
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:16, archived)
but I have a probably-not-unique voting system:
baby/children in picture: +1
Slightly funny looking but literate: -1 for looks but +1 for literacy = average vote
Exceptionally good looking but obvious fuckwit: -2
Gun in picture: -3
Pleasant but not exceptional: 5 (ie a vote of 5)
Can't see eyes (sunglasses or looking away): 1 (ie a vote of 1 - fuck you, why should I rate your looks when I can't see them?)
( , Sun 16 Sep 2007, 12:16, archived)