Author OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 Saw the article but they drew all the wrong conclusions (as always). The reason those pictures were attractive is because you can see clearly the eyes which are connecting to the camera, and the pictures have a certain "softness" to them which is attractive. The second girl (that didn't get many messages) is in the shade, you can't see her face or eyes in detail, and someone else's hand in on her shoulder. Ah but those are just example pictures. Their results are based on a huge number of profiles/pictures. You are reading too much into examples they posted.
Titania22 Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Ah but those are just example pictures. Their results are based on a huge number of profiles/pictures. You are reading too much into examples they posted. Then they should have picked examples that were representative of their whole batch.
Ariadne Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Ah but those are just example pictures. Their results are based on a huge number of profiles/pictures. You are reading too much into examples they posted. I don't need to see more pictures to see the trend. The reason why some people rated those "attractive pictures" all over the place was because the women were not particularly striking, but the pictures themselves were very attractive. So someone would rate a 3.5 person 10 because of the good picture, but someone would see that she is really not "that" pretty so they gave her low.
zengirl Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Right but even if they're not personally taken with her Asian-ness, I am sure they can for the most part recognize that she is "objectively" attractive and higher than a one. I just think there's more going on that meets the eye with these guys who give the controversial girls really low scores. I mean, maybe they could recognize that she's objectively pretty to other people, sure, but why would they care? The OKC ratings aren't "objective" or meant to be -- they're meant to be personal assessments of attractiveness.
threebyfate Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Between the blonde and the girl with the tacky flower in her hair, the blonde looks like someone you'd bring home to Momma. Wonder if that's why OKC males aren't as interested 'cause that place sounds like a major meat market. Another perspective.
crosswordfiend Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I mean, maybe they could recognize that she's objectively pretty to other people, sure, but why would they care? The OKC ratings aren't "objective" or meant to be -- they're meant to be personal assessments of attractiveness. Individually, the ratings are subjective. But taken on the whole, given a large enough sample, I believe that these ratings can be considered as objective. From my read of the analysis, overall attractiveness as defined by this objective rating is not the only factor that determines how many hits you get. Rather, there is a niche phenomenon going on here.
Ariadne Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Btw, I just saw the chart in the middle of the article with the little pictures and it makes sense. I'll start from the left with my input: 1) The first girl looking up looks like she lives in her own world, has the head up in the clouds and doesn't want to connect with anybody. Although she is pretty. 2) This girl looks like a party girl with two guys in the background and one with his big hand on her shoulder. 3) The girl smelling a flower. Guys would see that and go, huh? You can't even see her face with the flower and mainly is a "sweet" picture for mom or something like that. 4) The girl smiling with a bunch of chains. That girl looks like she just had sex with some guy and is going to a party tonight and is going to make out with others. 5) This one is getting closer to the "soft" and "eyes connecting to the camera" but still a little come getter so it's still low. 6) The Asian girl. Ok, first normal picture. A nice face, you can see it clearly, you can see the eyes, and are looking at the camera. She looks like a nice girl, no party, guys, chains, or weird stuff. 7) This doesn't make any sense. She probably has other pictures or other reason she gets messages. 8) The perfect example of "soft" (the sun shines in her hair, her face is flawless) her eyes completely connect and is an excellent picture.
oaks Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Another thing I wonder about is the guys who give the 1 ratings to the controversial women. That Asian girl for example is obviously attractive, anyone will recognize that even if she isn't your personal cup of tea. My hypothesis is these guys recognize that those women are attractive, but give her a lower rating for some other reason: bitterness, whatever. That would explain why they still message her. What I'm saying is giving her a 1 is so extreme that it almost suggests that they actually like her. As they say love and hate are closer than love and indifference. While the guys who think she's a 5 or 6 are being honest in their mehness. On that site when I rate people I'm not trying to give a "score out of 5"... and I'm not trying to rate people for the collective benefit of anyone else... so I give people a 1 if I don't want to date them and 4 if I do want to date them. I don't think it matters if I click 4 or 5 (I think it emails them anyway to say "someone gave you a 4 or 5") so it doesn't seem to matter whether I click 4 or 5 in terms of my use of the site. Oh, and I click 2 or 5 when I'm too lazy to move the mouse in the right direction. I occasionally click 3 when I think "maybe, can't tell, must check this profile again" and I usually clear that list out fairly soon and re-rate them (usually to 1). This also means that I give lots of 1s to people who are clearly objectively attractive but who are subjectively not what I'm looking for. I'm not saying they are only worth 1 out of 5 on an objective scale of attractiveness. Of course, sometimes I'll see someone who I think is just plain ugly and they'll get a 1 from me as well. I wish that site would automatically 'hide' profiles that I had given only 1 star, because I don't really need to see them again.
oaks Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Now I was never really awesome when it came to statistics. The one thing that I could grab from this was that OKCupid is full of uggos. Therefore if your universe is 90% uggos then the majority of messages will be going to uggos. I like it.
oaks Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I mean, maybe they could recognize that she's objectively pretty to other people, sure, but why would they care? The OKC ratings aren't "objective" or meant to be -- they're meant to be personal assessments of attractiveness. Yes, this. If I'm going through Quickmatch clicking on stars, the only thing that's important to me is "do I want to message this girl?" or perhaps "would I like to date this girl?" and I'm not rating her for the sake of objectivity. (sorry, pretty-but-not-my-type girls, you'll get a 1)
Recommended Posts