# Do you think that if you want to rate someone, a scale of 1 to 10 is far less expressive than a scale from -10 to 10?

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 bread
Vote A
• NUH-UH, the 1-10 scale is way better than some weird ass -10 to +10 unconventional methodology
Vote B
• 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 silly
Vote C
• I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYMORE
Vote D
• I HONESTLY DON'T CARE WHATSOEVER
Vote E
• OTHER
Vote F
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|1
411

• So.. C is the real answer.

People who are ugly or odd looking at first, or in a pic..

Can grow to be attractive to you over time.

but.. maybe you just need to be more realistic with your 1-10.

Most people, are NOT 7's lol

0|0
0|0
• I actually added C) because that seems to be the right answer, but rating on a scale of -10 to 10 has its own entertainment value :P

• I guess.. but I don't see the point.

Maybe that is because I have rated people on here at 4's and 2's before..

Hell, on a generous day, I give myself a 6

• 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...

0|1
0|0