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.
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?

-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
    24% (4)43% (9)34% (13)Vote
  • NUH-UH, the 1-10 scale is way better than some weird ass -10 to +10 unconventional methodology
    18% (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 silly
    24% (4)10% (2)16% (6)Vote
  • I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYMORE
    12% (2)10% (2)11% (4)Vote
  • I HONESTLY DON'T CARE WHATSOEVER
    22% (4)19% (4)21% (8)Vote
  • OTHER
    0% (0)4% (1)2% (1)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|1
4|11

Most Helpful Girl

  • 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

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...

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 3

  • I never rate anyone on a number scale. I find it appalling and degrading. I don't know who in history started this scale, but it is just ridiculous. So, voted C.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Garfield made me laugh.
    I fucking love that cat

    Idc about #s

    0|1
    0|0
  • "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"

    1|0
    0|0
    • I knew someone would want to vote that, but I actually like the -10 to +10 scale :D

What Guys Said 10

  • A scale of 1 to 10 is effectively the same as -5 to +5 anyway, so it just complicates matters by giving you more options to choose from (making it even harder to decide on the score to award).

    Really, you need a multidimensional scoring system, more along the lines of that Garfield diagram - something which includes both objective and subjective measures of attractiveness.

    1|3
    0|0
  • This should be the new thing.

    Well done captain.

    0|1
    0|0
  • it's technically da same thing bro.

    it might either be 0-100 or 45-500 or even 68434-345637377... it's da same thing. but 1-10 is da most common scale people use.

    both "1" and "-10" r #s. in both cases 1 and -10 r considered da minimum rate... wot it matters is PERCENTAGE.

    for xample if someone gives a 4.5 in da 1-10 scale percentage's 50%. if someone gives 0 in da -10-10 scale percentage's 50% again

    so a most accurate scale would be "rate my looks in percentage"... how about it?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think it would accomplish the same thing as the 1-10 scale only that it gives more increments.

    Also 0 would in a way be the "new 5" implying that while you aren't really attracted to them you don't find them difficult to look at either. However 0 just sounds/feels worse than 5. So people might be more offended by getting that rating.

    0|0
    0|0
    • No, I actually feel that 5 is dishonest. It doesn't accurately measure just how much I'm attracted to that given person. That's why I prefer 0: that's not bad, that's not good, that's just pure neutral

  • It does actually make sense and is an interesting idea but:

    A.) Giving someone a minus feels extra harsh and mean.
    B.) Many of the guys who don't care about A.) don't understand the concept of negative numbers anyway so...

    0|0
    0|0
  • Canned bread is still better than sliced bread
    img1.wikia.nocookie.net/.../...30!Canned_Bread.jpg

    But I actually don't mind what kind of scale to use lol. If someone is given a negative number, that sounds a kind of harsh.

    0|0
    0|0
  • For neutral ground, the 1-10 scale could just be upgraded to 1-11 (or 0-10 if you're willing to risk giving a rating of 0)

    0|0
    0|0
    • Yeah but I don't feel like 4 is as expressive as -2

    • It all depends on how you look at it. Scales are subjective anyway. If you're going for accuracy the 1-21 scale works the same way.

      Making zero neutral is saying 0's illicit zero reaction (repulsion/attraction) from you, but it also means that you are labeling "normal-attractiveness" with a word that literally means nothing. If you're going for expression, using the positive and negative dichotomy is useful, but will it be taken well? The idea that ratings are offensive can definitely be compounded with a prefix of "minus" or "negative."

      The trick, I think, would be to advocate zero as a strong neutral, and then add a less extreme word like "naught" or "under" to the rating.

      In my experience the criteria for rating systems are too muddled to care about the scale. I've had too many disagreements with friends on the simple binary polling of "hot" or "not.

  • I like this actually. Gives you more room to accurately rate someone.

    0|0
    0|0
  • ok i always get a 4-5 lol

    0|0
    0|0
  • I guess a larger scale will lead to more accurate ratings yes. For example, if you had to rate girls 1-5, then it will lead to a very difficult debate between two 5's being equally hot.

    I kinda get what you mean about -ve numbers. But then I guess 0 would be no attraction, and a minus, not attracted? A low positive like 2 or 3 would be would bang it, 4-6 fairly hot and above that outstandingly good?

    Nice question!

    Could you help me on my question and take pls?

    www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1623417-why-do-i-suddenly-feel-sexual-desire-for-this-friend-why-is-she

    www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a21657-three-is-the-magic-number-why-you-should-offer-him-a-threesome

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...