Nowadays, whenever I rate people in terms of numbers, instead of going from 1 to 10 (which is almost always a 7 for pretty much everyone ever), I go with a scale of -10 to 10, where 0 is totally neutral, positive numbers are indicators of attractiveness, and negative numbers are indicators of unattractiveness.
I think it's way better than the 1-10 scale.
-10 to 10 all the way!
What say you?
- YES you are correct, the -10 to +10 scale is the best thing since sliced bread24% (4)43% (9)34% (13)Vote
- NUH-UH, the 1-10 scale is way better than some weird ass -10 to +10 unconventional methodology18% (3)14% (3)16% (6)Vote
- ACTUALLY, number based assessment of one's attractiveness is oversimplified, and no matter the scale, it leaves too many things out of consideration and just overall silly24% (4)10% (2)16% (6)Vote
- I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYMORE12% (2)10% (2)11% (4)Vote
- I HONESTLY DON'T CARE WHATSOEVER22% (4)19% (4)21% (8)Vote
- OTHER0% (0)4% (1)2% (1)Vote
Most Helpful Girl
Most Helpful Guy
Negative is good in a way because it would allow zero to indicate you lacking attraction but a negative number to indicate repulsion.
With a 1-10 (or 0-10) scale I'm never sure whether it's meant to be a linear a scale or to have a normal distribution - or something else.
But what about giving multidimensional ratings? Perhaps this vector could represent your appeal: (3, 2 +4i, -6)
Really though we should be using matrices...1