h a l f b a k e r yThis is what happens when one confuses "random" with "profound."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I have often thought that the 1 to 10 scale of judging somebody’s appearance needs updating. I was listening to three of my co-workers grading men as they walked by. (I was shocked, I thought only men were that crass) Anyway, there was just too much variation in their numbers, so I suggested a new
standard for grading, and they seemed to have fun with it.
The idea is this. The scale goes from infinite to 0, and the number you give is the number where you say, “Ok, I don’t need him/her to get any closer.” For example a 10 would be given to someone that any closer than 10 feet and the flaws start showing up. Almost anyone can look good at a mile or so. Of course 30 would be given to those that people would only touch with a thirty foot pole.
Hopefully on this scale you would rate your own husband/wife at 0. If not, well that's why I picked this category.
[link]
|
| |
There's a lot of people I would be willing to touch, just not be very happy about it- seems like this scale would only be good for identifying huge flaws. |
|
| |
sorta like the "beer scale": how many beers would you have to have consumed, to... |
|
| |
...can you really *see* someone a mile away?? |
|
| |
[phundug] You miss the wonder of this scale! It is not just for measuring the bad and ugly. Think of what you can say additionally with this scale. There are many women out there that I would enjoy dating. (Alas, single again) Women I wouldn’t mind putting my arms around and even rubbing noses with. They would rate at the very top of the scale. A zero! I would enjoy closing the gap completely. And yet, I have only dated the top of the other scale, a ten, once in my life. Wouldn’t it make your date, wife, husband, fiancé… feel good to know that you truly thought he/she rated a zero? You truly placed her/him at the top of the scale. |
|
| |
You tell them they are a ten and they thank you but don’t believe you really mean it, but call them a zero, and you could have already shown your sincerity by holding their hand. |
|
| |
[xandram] No you can't. Thats why they all still pass. |
|
| |
[FlyingToaster] The beer scale? Never heard of it before but I think it lacks something. |
|
| |
[admin: moved to Units of Measurements. The category the poster picked and is referring to in the idea text was Culture: Weddings and Divorces. We're being humorless when it comes to categories, just so people have a fighting chance of finding something they're looking for.] |
|
| |
Seems like the scale should be (power-of-2) logarithmic. Can you really tell that much more about someone from 7 feet (or meters, for that matter) rather than 8? |
|
| |
[csea] I have no real problem with adjustment to the scale as far as going for feet, inches, meters, angstrums etc..., but keeping it as a straight measure of distance makes it easy to understand in my simple mind anyway. |
|
| |
sorry [jutta] I'll try to be more humorless next time. ;-) |
|
| |
So you can rate someone as -0.5? |
|
| |
I can rate someone -1 at least |
|
| |
In a "get thee behind me X" kind of way? |
|
| |
In common with what it replaces, this scale is, quite literally, one-dimensional. Sorry to line up with the humourless brigade, but I really recommend, if you don't want to keep being //single again//, that you broaden your view. [-] |
|
| |
You're right. Rating people on a linear scale is crass. [-] |
|
| |
[zeno] I think I've seen one of your movies. |
|
| |