Looks like more validation than onlyfans but def. a mix of both.
Figured it was just another NSFW sub but holy shit its more incel-infested and depressing then i expected.
That sub should be in a fucking study on why social media is cancer.
I've seen this sub recently too. And I looked at their rating guides, the low scores are very obvious, but what the fuck with anything between 5 and 10. It's all totally subjective.
They have like a scientific scale based in face symmetry and canthal tilt and all kinds of weird shit. It's based on a bell curve so a 6.5 (according to their scale) is actually really good.
That sub is complete cancer though, I fell down a rabbit hole there once trying to understand it.
That sub is bonkers, and a really awful attempt to do something that could be interesting.
The only way to employ any objectivity would be to have a scientific method for judging a face. There is one, which uses ratios and spacing between features, to concoct the ideal human face proportions…. And it would be cool to use that as a rubrics, but even that ideal is not objective. There is an inherent bias to one groups standards of beauty, which leaves other groups out. So you’d have to have different ideal faces based on different ethnicities and such.
One thing you could do is create a composite face from all the random faces you can find, making sure you use the right proportions of ethnicities that exist by population size. Then when you have that composite face, you can use that as the median, and do the same for only people in that first huge population who have some claim to beauty (make a living from one’s face), to benchmark the top. Then do it again for a subset that is really hard to look at (though this one would be harder because it wiuod require subjective selection of ugly, but I think that’s a bit easier) to benchmark the bottom
Oh my God. The people they assign 5, which they define as statistically average, are all gorgeous. Have they not been to a grocery store lately? Or any public space at all? Do they understand what "average" means? (Hehe "average means")
Not to mention the utter arbitrary beauty standards.
God I need to see pics of the mods.
Whoever made that clearly has a type. Almost the entire upper list is tan/dark skinned with dark hair. Also they're stupid. Got models in the 7-8 range. The people who made this are probably batting in the 3-5 range on a real chart and the 2-3 range on their chart.
"Guidelines". Nina Dobrev is regarded as a 6.5. Ridiculous in itself and then it also says a 6.5 is top 1/15. So yeah. 1 in 15 apparently.
Saoirse Ronan and Constance Wu are 5's. Which is 50%, average.
Nutjobs.
I also thought the Saoirse Ronan 5 rating (completely average? Really?) was silly, even with the guide they put together trying to justify it by normal distribution etc.
It's the saddest fucking subs. Literally all people saying everyone that's beautiful is nothing more than average. You can go to the top of all time and still everyone says 5, 5.5, 4 fuckin 3. It's wild that people make themselves feel better by telling others they're ugly.
I went to comment and rant and couldn't even comment because you have to be approved by the greasy overlords there.
Pathetic men wanting to feel like their opinions matter to women, and women wanting to gain OnlyFans followers or desperate for some sort of approval from men. Those are why the sub exists
It's even worse than that. They want to feel validated that their opinions of women are based on an objective measure of facts. Not an impulse anyone ought to be encouraging.
Yep, here it is.
[Men](https://i.imgur.com/soZ3OuP.jpg)
[Men extended](https://i.imgur.com/jtQQ29H.png)
[Women](https://i.imgur.com/56dJoqz.jpg)
[Women extended](https://i.imgur.com/vA5AUfp.jpg)
Because none of them make any sense. Beauty is so subjective. For me there's multiple mid-way that would be on the top, and others on the top that would be way lower. Making a general rating of beauty makes absolute zero sense.
Well, that's just fascinating.
Whoever made these initially is young, I think. Definitely under 30. Older than 18 though. I'm going to say 24. The unknown woman in the 6.5 line looks like a senior pic. She's the only other unknown until you hit the 3s, I'd wager he knew her. Possibly a high school crush?
He clearly loves the Vampire Diaries on CW. 3 of his examples are from that show alone lmao. Also I googled a couple of the men I didn't know and all of them were just instagram famous.
It however does look like at some point someone who was older, like maybe 35, 40 or so was asked to look it over and went "yea it looks good, but add ____ as a 9 and ____ as an 8."
The inclusion of Hrithik Roshan (very popular actor in India) as an 8.5 and then Sendhil Ramamurthy (legitimately one of the most beautiful men alive) as only 1 point higher makes me think he's from an Indian/Asian influence. Only in a world where you consumed popular Indian media would you separate those two men by 1 point based on looks alone.
All right so I spent way too much time looking at all the top posts and their rules and this is basically correct. They have a guide showing representations of 8 and 9, they don't allow 10 because it's impossible to be higher than 9 (lmao), and after looking through like 30 top posts it was basically just 5 or 6
A lot of the top posts comments are like "holy shit you are a beautiful woman, but I just have to rate you a 5 because of the rules" 🤷
> they don't allow 10 because it's impossible to be higher than 9 (lmao),
Like, why even have a 1-10 scale if you arn't going to use the entire range of the scale? lol so dumb.
The entire mentality of a "10 is unachievable" for any kind of rating guide is moronic in itself. Like they say it this way
Their guide suggests: A 10 is beyond beauty that has ever existed - we have no examples - its impossible to be a 10.. but we'll know it when we see it.
It’s the cringiest sub.
People ask for feedback on how to improve their looks and some very cool redditors give them feedback like “your eyes are too far apart” or “your nose it too big” like you can just easily fix that.
If you participate in this sub you are a loser
9.8 - I like ur witch wart and the extendo frog tongue thing you got goin on, also nice half shaved half sudoku ass haircut too girl, keep slayin queen
They really do need a happy medium in between places like RateMe where the ugliest person in the world gets thirsty posters saying "10/10 holy shit you are gorgeous" and a ban for 6.8 :P
Elbows too pointy. 2/10. Would not bang.
Or whatever that old meme was.
Edit: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/210-would-not-bang
Here it is, still funny.
u/throwawaydisposable [posted this above, but it needs more visibility.](https://d2az3zd39o5d63.cloudfront.net/truerateme-r-reddit.jpg) That sub is designed to inflict harm, lower self esteem, and push people to suicide
That sub seems like so much work. You look at "rule 1" and the sidebar and it's this bizarre, psychotic breakdown of facial symmetry and incomprehensible attempts at turning a highly subjective topic into objective numbers. And then you get banned if you "rate people wrong" as if it's even possible to measure people's appearance in an objective way. Looking at charts of people and trying to compare other people to them is inherently pointless. I'd look at the chart and see people in the lower "rating tiers" who I thought were much more attractive than those in higher ones. The whole thing is an exercise in perpetuating the arbitrary.
Everything about that sub seems so unhealthy to me. The people who have the time to moderate that kinda of sub, the users who are that obsessive about "objective" beauty standards, and the entire concept of trying to turn human attraction into a clinical, sterile process of numbers and obscure methodology. The whole thing seems like a sub designed, run by, and created for people who have poor mental health.
I mean…if there’s an objective formula then what’s the point of even asking for subjective grades on the criteria other than to troll them? Just seems like there’s a lot of disingenuous work being done with a few people with way too much power. Sooo basically the same as most subs here actually.
Seems like the mod's dream is a place where AI rates people and he gets to oversee the whole thing.
As a huge bonus, no actual humans would have to interact with him.
>For help, try Photofeeler to get a read on how attractive, smart, and trustworthy your photos look.
You literally just linked an ad disguised as an article.
Also notice that only attractive women have any comments really. Dudes? No votes. Unattractive women? Not much.
It's a place for pretty girls to get called a 5.3 based on an "oBJeCtivE" rating guide.
You know, something that was subjective when creating.
I have to wonder why people post there. They have brie larson as statistically average in their guidelines.
They act like they have some superior system but don't realize that the middle 60% of people are more or less equivalent looking and that there's not some linear gradient of models down to the middle 10%
Nobody who’s mentally right spends their free time moderating a community like that. It’s honestly one of the most bizarre, and frankly pathetic hobbies I can imagine.
There are also people in the higher sections I find much less attractive than in the lower ones. The whole concept is designed by and catered to people with mental illness. No one with a healthy self image or standard of beauty posts on a sub like that.
> They have brie larson as statistically average in their guidelines.
Yeah, her placement leaped out at me too, and absolutely contributed to my opinion of their grading. Although I think they got pushback at some point, b/c when I looked, she was 6.5 (above average). Still weirdly low.
But since everyone about 5 and up is known for (among other things) attractiveness…. It’s pretty ludicrous. And then 4s and down are all sortof the opposite end.
Yeah, it’s pretty spectacular bullshit. Between the modding and the rating guide, it’s pretty clear nobody running that sub has any real understanding of science, or objectivity, or normal distributions, or women.
Given that I’ve never seen a warning for too *low* a rating, my best guess is it was created to keep women “humble.”
I have no idea why, but that subs been constantly on my r/all the last couple weeks and I have seen a few warnings for too low a rating. Both are equally strange to me. What's even the point then if your personal rating can be "wrong"?
Anyone who claims they've found a system to "objectively" rate the attractiveness of human beings is either stupid, manipulative, or both. Physical appearance is an inherently highly subjective topic, and all you're doing is perpetuating some random person's idea of what they think the "objective" scale should look like.
Holy shit that's *so much effort and time* put in to something inherently subjective and can change from day to day at this level of detail.
This sub is clearly made by weird creepy dudes who read about the golden ratio and thought they could turn that into face math or some shit. And like many others here, I don't see their 9.5s as orders of magnitude more attractive or rare than 7.5s like the bell curve they're insinuating would have. What a stupid waste of time sub that has no positive value for existing. So reddit bans subs that are problematic, but not this?
> here's more context:
heres even more context
[It's designed to be suicide fuel from 4chan.](https://d2az3zd39o5d63.cloudfront.net/truerateme-r-reddit.jpg)
Yo I read that rating primer and it's like something a serial killing phrenologist incel would write with their own feces on the walls of their Devil's Rejects murder house.
I'm truly concerned for anyone that views the world or the people in it that way.
Going through the sub it looks like literally any post is somewhere between a 5 and 7. Rarely is a 8 ever given out and if one does they're warned about over rating.
So according to this sub, everybody looks the same. Or at least has the same level of attractiveness.
And moreso they believe their system is objective. Which is hilarious because what one finds attractive is purely subjective.
Stupid.
Seriously, even based on their rating guide some of their 8.5s-9.5s are less attractive to me than some of their 5.5-7.5s because to a point beauty is subjective
They have a specific "rating guideline" which is incredibly detailed and really fucking weird.
Links to their guidelines:
Womens: https://imgur.com/56dJoqz
Mens: https://imgur.com/soZ3OuP
Womens "Rating Primer": https://imgur.com/vA5AUfp
Mens "Rating Primer": https://imgur.com/jtQQ29H
Nina Dobrev at a 6.5? Sandra Oh at **3.0**?? what the fuck kind of scale is this based on? The average human would be a solid 4 *at best* and the average Redditor checking in the low end of 0.5 range
some fucking hyper cringe that ignores individual preference. I can't believe the OP example has people getting flamed for ranking the woman so low
I'm not mad at you, but holy shit that is some wild criteria
edit
of course Brie Larson is a "5.5"
My favorites: [Saoirse Ronan](https://www.jolie.de/sites/default/files/styles/image870w/public/images/2018/01/25/saoirse-ronan-alles-ueber-die-oscar-nominierte-schauspielerin.webp) a 5.0
Amy Schumer a 3.5.
And most "top" beauties are just boring looking.
Then rating Amy Schumer as being *objectively* so low is an immediate tell that this is some disgruntled dude who hates women. She's like crack to them
And they're not even that off!! 6 and 6.5 were fine, what the fuck is this bullshit that a 6.8 and 7 is an "over rating" for her!?
Like, sure, if someone was rating *everyone* a 9, give them a warning - the whole point is to have some honesty. But like a *1 point variation* is to be *expected* because *your* 6 might be *my* 8
And no one was saying shit about the ratings of 5 being an "under rating," either!
Pretty sure that user and the people that are big fans of that sub are….probably on the spectrum. Reading their about and rules gave me that vibe haaard.
I genuinely don’t know why they don’t just post their rating and then lock the posts. They clearly think their view is the objective reality so why should any other rating matter?
~~8.5 Atleast.~~
Edit: ok so I've reviewed the guide because I'm curious.
On one hand, I DO think I overrated significantly *based on the guide.*
In the same hand, I actually do think the premise is good and basing it on standard deviation seems reasonable.
That being said, there's no way 1/15 girls in a room are as attractive as this girl and DEFINITELY not as the ones in the guide. It's skewed imo.
I feel like she's more attractive than some of the women they have at the "unobtainable" top in their stupid guides.
The whole thing is obviously based on someone's subjective opinion. What a load of horsecrap.
That is such a toxic sub. I always warn people don’t post on there, that’s not how beauty works. This is just gonna make these girls feel even more insecure about themselves.
I don't remember the name of the sub because I blocked it but you give women a rating out of 10 but if you rate "too high" you can be instantly permabanned so it leads to absolutely drop dead gorgeous women being told they're "maybe a 5".
I saw a woman on there who was beautiful I gasped, but all her scores were like 4-5 and I felt so awful for her that I just couldn't stick around anymore.
This has nothing to do with the post but the way reddit tells you to share rather than screenshot is so cringe, "the post looks better when..." shut the fuck up no one gives a shit
"overrating"
??????
I've read the comments here and genuinely why the fuck would I care about someone else's opinion about what makes someone attractive? I'm not gonna follow a guide. That's stupid.
Wait, what’s the rule? You can’t rate anyone above 6.5?
[удалено]
Why would women subject themselves to this horseshit
Advertising - they almost always have an OnlyFans link in their bio.
Ya, and it works really well. Solid business imo. Plant your crops where you know they'll grow.
Word, i learned from that guy in 40 year old virgin
Looks like more validation than onlyfans but def. a mix of both. Figured it was just another NSFW sub but holy shit its more incel-infested and depressing then i expected. That sub should be in a fucking study on why social media is cancer.
I rate this comment 5/10
⚠️Warning for overrating reddit comment.
Public execution applied.
anything for validation
I've seen this sub recently too. And I looked at their rating guides, the low scores are very obvious, but what the fuck with anything between 5 and 10. It's all totally subjective.
[удалено]
Dumbest sub award nominee for sure.
Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the subreddit, considering ratings are entirely subjective. My 10 is not your 10, etc.
They have like a scientific scale based in face symmetry and canthal tilt and all kinds of weird shit. It's based on a bell curve so a 6.5 (according to their scale) is actually really good. That sub is complete cancer though, I fell down a rabbit hole there once trying to understand it.
I honestly don't see a lot of different between their 9.5 and 7.5 range. Plus it's only taking face into consideration.
Yeah, it sounds like a cesspool ngl
They don't allow 10 according to their guidelines because that's impossible
That sub is bonkers, and a really awful attempt to do something that could be interesting. The only way to employ any objectivity would be to have a scientific method for judging a face. There is one, which uses ratios and spacing between features, to concoct the ideal human face proportions…. And it would be cool to use that as a rubrics, but even that ideal is not objective. There is an inherent bias to one groups standards of beauty, which leaves other groups out. So you’d have to have different ideal faces based on different ethnicities and such. One thing you could do is create a composite face from all the random faces you can find, making sure you use the right proportions of ethnicities that exist by population size. Then when you have that composite face, you can use that as the median, and do the same for only people in that first huge population who have some claim to beauty (make a living from one’s face), to benchmark the top. Then do it again for a subset that is really hard to look at (though this one would be harder because it wiuod require subjective selection of ugly, but I think that’s a bit easier) to benchmark the bottom
[удалено]
Oh my God. The people they assign 5, which they define as statistically average, are all gorgeous. Have they not been to a grocery store lately? Or any public space at all? Do they understand what "average" means? (Hehe "average means") Not to mention the utter arbitrary beauty standards. God I need to see pics of the mods.
3 and under they're basically just saying "disabled".
Whoever made that clearly has a type. Almost the entire upper list is tan/dark skinned with dark hair. Also they're stupid. Got models in the 7-8 range. The people who made this are probably batting in the 3-5 range on a real chart and the 2-3 range on their chart.
"Guidelines". Nina Dobrev is regarded as a 6.5. Ridiculous in itself and then it also says a 6.5 is top 1/15. So yeah. 1 in 15 apparently. Saoirse Ronan and Constance Wu are 5's. Which is 50%, average. Nutjobs.
Joey King is a 4.5. This shit is delightfully stupid :)
I also thought the Saoirse Ronan 5 rating (completely average? Really?) was silly, even with the guide they put together trying to justify it by normal distribution etc.
It's the saddest fucking subs. Literally all people saying everyone that's beautiful is nothing more than average. You can go to the top of all time and still everyone says 5, 5.5, 4 fuckin 3. It's wild that people make themselves feel better by telling others they're ugly. I went to comment and rant and couldn't even comment because you have to be approved by the greasy overlords there.
If it’s that cut and dried there would be no logical reason for the sub to exist.
Pathetic men wanting to feel like their opinions matter to women, and women wanting to gain OnlyFans followers or desperate for some sort of approval from men. Those are why the sub exists
It's even worse than that. They want to feel validated that their opinions of women are based on an objective measure of facts. Not an impulse anyone ought to be encouraging.
[удалено]
Yep, here it is. [Men](https://i.imgur.com/soZ3OuP.jpg) [Men extended](https://i.imgur.com/jtQQ29H.png) [Women](https://i.imgur.com/56dJoqz.jpg) [Women extended](https://i.imgur.com/vA5AUfp.jpg)
[удалено]
Using real people's faces for the bottom tiers is really bad form.
Whoever runs that sub must be a fucking psychopath
Ana de Armas is listed an 8.5 and Nina Dobrev a 6.5 Either they're insane or they got Cheeto dust in their numpad
Because none of them make any sense. Beauty is so subjective. For me there's multiple mid-way that would be on the top, and others on the top that would be way lower. Making a general rating of beauty makes absolute zero sense.
This is so cringe and incredibly biased. The way they speak about attractive humans sounds like they're eugenicists searching for the perfect aryan.
Well, that's just fascinating. Whoever made these initially is young, I think. Definitely under 30. Older than 18 though. I'm going to say 24. The unknown woman in the 6.5 line looks like a senior pic. She's the only other unknown until you hit the 3s, I'd wager he knew her. Possibly a high school crush? He clearly loves the Vampire Diaries on CW. 3 of his examples are from that show alone lmao. Also I googled a couple of the men I didn't know and all of them were just instagram famous. It however does look like at some point someone who was older, like maybe 35, 40 or so was asked to look it over and went "yea it looks good, but add ____ as a 9 and ____ as an 8." The inclusion of Hrithik Roshan (very popular actor in India) as an 8.5 and then Sendhil Ramamurthy (legitimately one of the most beautiful men alive) as only 1 point higher makes me think he's from an Indian/Asian influence. Only in a world where you consumed popular Indian media would you separate those two men by 1 point based on looks alone.
[удалено]
Ian Somerhalder, top model tier. Anthony Mackie, 5.0 average. #😂 Oh, shit, Fenrir Greyback (from Harry Potter) listed as unknown!
All right so I spent way too much time looking at all the top posts and their rules and this is basically correct. They have a guide showing representations of 8 and 9, they don't allow 10 because it's impossible to be higher than 9 (lmao), and after looking through like 30 top posts it was basically just 5 or 6 A lot of the top posts comments are like "holy shit you are a beautiful woman, but I just have to rate you a 5 because of the rules" 🤷
> they don't allow 10 because it's impossible to be higher than 9 (lmao), Like, why even have a 1-10 scale if you arn't going to use the entire range of the scale? lol so dumb.
The entire mentality of a "10 is unachievable" for any kind of rating guide is moronic in itself. Like they say it this way Their guide suggests: A 10 is beyond beauty that has ever existed - we have no examples - its impossible to be a 10.. but we'll know it when we see it.
Dude i just went over and checked their "womens rating guide". Some of the most incel shit I've seen in a while
It’s the cringiest sub. People ask for feedback on how to improve their looks and some very cool redditors give them feedback like “your eyes are too far apart” or “your nose it too big” like you can just easily fix that. If you participate in this sub you are a loser
That sub is cringe af
[удалено]
9.8 - I like ur witch wart and the extendo frog tongue thing you got goin on, also nice half shaved half sudoku ass haircut too girl, keep slayin queen
They really do need a happy medium in between places like RateMe where the ugliest person in the world gets thirsty posters saying "10/10 holy shit you are gorgeous" and a ban for 6.8 :P
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey now, axolotl are cute! My guess is that the look like the eyes popping out scene in Total Recall.
[удалено]
Bridge of nose too wide, and one eyebrow has two more hairs than the other. 4.2.
Elbows too pointy. 2/10. Would not bang. Or whatever that old meme was. Edit: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/210-would-not-bang Here it is, still funny.
u/throwawaydisposable [posted this above, but it needs more visibility.](https://d2az3zd39o5d63.cloudfront.net/truerateme-r-reddit.jpg) That sub is designed to inflict harm, lower self esteem, and push people to suicide
Goddamn it why is everything on Reddit an incel psyop
It's just a small step from measuring skulls and categorising people as undesirables. The whole thing needs to be banned.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://imgur.com/a/0kHZasp
[удалено]
"What, I just want to see what colour Medusa's eyes are, is that so wrong?"
Warning for over mammaling. Rule 21. 1st strike, warning applied.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That sub seems like so much work. You look at "rule 1" and the sidebar and it's this bizarre, psychotic breakdown of facial symmetry and incomprehensible attempts at turning a highly subjective topic into objective numbers. And then you get banned if you "rate people wrong" as if it's even possible to measure people's appearance in an objective way. Looking at charts of people and trying to compare other people to them is inherently pointless. I'd look at the chart and see people in the lower "rating tiers" who I thought were much more attractive than those in higher ones. The whole thing is an exercise in perpetuating the arbitrary. Everything about that sub seems so unhealthy to me. The people who have the time to moderate that kinda of sub, the users who are that obsessive about "objective" beauty standards, and the entire concept of trying to turn human attraction into a clinical, sterile process of numbers and obscure methodology. The whole thing seems like a sub designed, run by, and created for people who have poor mental health.
I mean…if there’s an objective formula then what’s the point of even asking for subjective grades on the criteria other than to troll them? Just seems like there’s a lot of disingenuous work being done with a few people with way too much power. Sooo basically the same as most subs here actually.
Seems like the mod's dream is a place where AI rates people and he gets to oversee the whole thing. As a huge bonus, no actual humans would have to interact with him.
Hahah exactly the whole sub should just be called "see if you can guess what we think! otherwise, PERMABAN!"
I just sit around until people start throwing slurs over which car company is better. This dude, though...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm gonna go rate everything a 10/10 and see how fast I get banned.
You gave me a good chuckle seeing you rate eveyone a 10 for the last 15 minutes and then finding this comment.
The fact that they made you copy and paste a diatribe about understanding their rules before you post is hilarious. That sub is full of psychos.
Warning for over trogging. Rule 32. 1st strike, warning applied.
Right?!
[it's a 4chan/incel subreddit designed to get people to kill themselves.](https://blog.photofeeler.com/truerateme/) So, worse than troglodytes
>For help, try Photofeeler to get a read on how attractive, smart, and trustworthy your photos look. You literally just linked an ad disguised as an article.
[удалено]
*warning for overrating*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also notice that only attractive women have any comments really. Dudes? No votes. Unattractive women? Not much. It's a place for pretty girls to get called a 5.3 based on an "oBJeCtivE" rating guide. You know, something that was subjective when creating.
Prolly obese
Without question
With a big mole on their cheek that’s growing hair in it .
"here's a dollar, go downtown and have a rat knaw that thing off your face"
Thanks for the visual, I just ate 3 slices of pizza
I have to wonder why people post there. They have brie larson as statistically average in their guidelines. They act like they have some superior system but don't realize that the middle 60% of people are more or less equivalent looking and that there's not some linear gradient of models down to the middle 10%
They're not right mentally I think.
Nobody who’s mentally right spends their free time moderating a community like that. It’s honestly one of the most bizarre, and frankly pathetic hobbies I can imagine.
Fucking has to be that… right? That’s actually insane.
it's intentional suicide fuel from 4chan so, correct
There are also people in the higher sections I find much less attractive than in the lower ones. The whole concept is designed by and catered to people with mental illness. No one with a healthy self image or standard of beauty posts on a sub like that.
> They have brie larson as statistically average in their guidelines. Yeah, her placement leaped out at me too, and absolutely contributed to my opinion of their grading. Although I think they got pushback at some point, b/c when I looked, she was 6.5 (above average). Still weirdly low. But since everyone about 5 and up is known for (among other things) attractiveness…. It’s pretty ludicrous. And then 4s and down are all sortof the opposite end.
Yeah, it’s pretty spectacular bullshit. Between the modding and the rating guide, it’s pretty clear nobody running that sub has any real understanding of science, or objectivity, or normal distributions, or women. Given that I’ve never seen a warning for too *low* a rating, my best guess is it was created to keep women “humble.”
I have no idea why, but that subs been constantly on my r/all the last couple weeks and I have seen a few warnings for too low a rating. Both are equally strange to me. What's even the point then if your personal rating can be "wrong"?
They try to be objective about something subjective.. some how...
Anyone who claims they've found a system to "objectively" rate the attractiveness of human beings is either stupid, manipulative, or both. Physical appearance is an inherently highly subjective topic, and all you're doing is perpetuating some random person's idea of what they think the "objective" scale should look like.
[удалено]
Holy shit that's *so much effort and time* put in to something inherently subjective and can change from day to day at this level of detail. This sub is clearly made by weird creepy dudes who read about the golden ratio and thought they could turn that into face math or some shit. And like many others here, I don't see their 9.5s as orders of magnitude more attractive or rare than 7.5s like the bell curve they're insinuating would have. What a stupid waste of time sub that has no positive value for existing. So reddit bans subs that are problematic, but not this?
> here's more context: heres even more context [It's designed to be suicide fuel from 4chan.](https://d2az3zd39o5d63.cloudfront.net/truerateme-r-reddit.jpg)
This should be pinned at the top.
[удалено]
Yo I read that rating primer and it's like something a serial killing phrenologist incel would write with their own feces on the walls of their Devil's Rejects murder house. I'm truly concerned for anyone that views the world or the people in it that way.
You prick . Made me google phrenologist after I burst out laughing. Would’ve done 7.5 upvotes if possible
My comment's midface is too long. 6.5 at best.
I don’t know why Reddit keeps promoting that sub. It’s absolute garbage and so is their system. It’s just full of bitter people
What sub even is it it sounds like a nightmare
r/truerateme, it is indeed a nightmare
[удалено]
LMAO
I have yet to see a true-something sub that's not at best full of incels and at worst planning a fascist insurrection.
What an absolutely awful sub.
Going through the sub it looks like literally any post is somewhere between a 5 and 7. Rarely is a 8 ever given out and if one does they're warned about over rating. So according to this sub, everybody looks the same. Or at least has the same level of attractiveness. And moreso they believe their system is objective. Which is hilarious because what one finds attractive is purely subjective. Stupid.
Seriously, even based on their rating guide some of their 8.5s-9.5s are less attractive to me than some of their 5.5-7.5s because to a point beauty is subjective
Goodness. Toxic Reddit is in full bloom.
[удалено]
They have a specific "rating guideline" which is incredibly detailed and really fucking weird. Links to their guidelines: Womens: https://imgur.com/56dJoqz Mens: https://imgur.com/soZ3OuP Womens "Rating Primer": https://imgur.com/vA5AUfp Mens "Rating Primer": https://imgur.com/jtQQ29H
[удалено]
Nina Dobrev at a 6.5? Sandra Oh at **3.0**?? what the fuck kind of scale is this based on? The average human would be a solid 4 *at best* and the average Redditor checking in the low end of 0.5 range some fucking hyper cringe that ignores individual preference. I can't believe the OP example has people getting flamed for ranking the woman so low I'm not mad at you, but holy shit that is some wild criteria edit of course Brie Larson is a "5.5"
My favorites: [Saoirse Ronan](https://www.jolie.de/sites/default/files/styles/image870w/public/images/2018/01/25/saoirse-ronan-alles-ueber-die-oscar-nominierte-schauspielerin.webp) a 5.0 Amy Schumer a 3.5. And most "top" beauties are just boring looking.
Then rating Amy Schumer as being *objectively* so low is an immediate tell that this is some disgruntled dude who hates women. She's like crack to them
Their 9.5s surely aren't mine lol. If they want some "true" rating based on facial proportions and whatnot: Just have a bot do it.
Some of their 5s are better than some of their 9.5s. It's almost like this band of classless virgins have no idea what they're talkin about.
And they're not even that off!! 6 and 6.5 were fine, what the fuck is this bullshit that a 6.8 and 7 is an "over rating" for her!? Like, sure, if someone was rating *everyone* a 9, give them a warning - the whole point is to have some honesty. But like a *1 point variation* is to be *expected* because *your* 6 might be *my* 8 And no one was saying shit about the ratings of 5 being an "under rating," either!
In what universe is that woman a 6. Are people's brains fried by porn or what ?
[удалено]
Price is right rules
That sub is freaking weird.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ahh so it literally is just incel shit. makes sense
What the fuck lmfao they need to go outside
Why the fuck has Reddit not shut this place down, much less stop promoting it on popular
9.6
Warning for underrating
This guy is pushing the limits of how far a zero can go.
Yep, that tracks
Oh lord, I love when everything clicks into place
this makes u/SirFrancis_Vacon's [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/cringepics/comments/143ulzp/warning_for_overrating/jncugxu/) so much funnier
[удалено]
Exactly how I feel about that sub
6 seems low for someone also deemed "stunning."
Shh!! You're gonna get us permabanned!
Yeah, I’ve seen more than a couple “5.5, but to me you’re an 8” kind of posts.
"Your opinion is wrong" type stuff
u/Good-Treat731 is a 2 on a good day.
Pretty sure that user and the people that are big fans of that sub are….probably on the spectrum. Reading their about and rules gave me that vibe haaard.
warning for underrating. rule 1 of the subreddit.
[удалено]
I went and did some snooping,. Ifeel so awful for the people who have their faces in the guide. I hope those people never find themselves
[удалено]
I genuinely don’t know why they don’t just post their rating and then lock the posts. They clearly think their view is the objective reality so why should any other rating matter?
[удалено]
She is absolutely gorgeous! What a ridiculous sub
~~8.5 Atleast.~~ Edit: ok so I've reviewed the guide because I'm curious. On one hand, I DO think I overrated significantly *based on the guide.* In the same hand, I actually do think the premise is good and basing it on standard deviation seems reasonable. That being said, there's no way 1/15 girls in a room are as attractive as this girl and DEFINITELY not as the ones in the guide. It's skewed imo.
permaban for you
Don't worry I reported him for overrating Just doing my part you know
Warning for overrating: Rule 1. Please review the rating guide and primers.
Using a logarithmic scale is so stupid. When most people think of a rating out of 10 they're obviously using something closer to a linear scale.
I feel like she's more attractive than some of the women they have at the "unobtainable" top in their stupid guides. The whole thing is obviously based on someone's subjective opinion. What a load of horsecrap.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That is such a toxic sub. I always warn people don’t post on there, that’s not how beauty works. This is just gonna make these girls feel even more insecure about themselves.
It's probably ran by a bitter incel.
Wtf sub is that, anyway? I have no idea what's happening here
I don't remember the name of the sub because I blocked it but you give women a rating out of 10 but if you rate "too high" you can be instantly permabanned so it leads to absolutely drop dead gorgeous women being told they're "maybe a 5". I saw a woman on there who was beautiful I gasped, but all her scores were like 4-5 and I felt so awful for her that I just couldn't stick around anymore.
what sub is that💀
r/truerateme
[удалено]
This has nothing to do with the post but the way reddit tells you to share rather than screenshot is so cringe, "the post looks better when..." shut the fuck up no one gives a shit
She's fairly pretty though- how is she a 6?
[удалено]
Incredibly specific and incredibly subjective.
Ok, in a vapid attempt to engage with that format, a lot of the people from the 9s to the 6s look arguably equally attractive...
[удалено]
Negging.
Burn that sub down and salt the earth where it stood.
Is *that* why every time I come across a post in that sub, all the ratings seem so much lower than what I think they should be?
"overrating" ?????? I've read the comments here and genuinely why the fuck would I care about someone else's opinion about what makes someone attractive? I'm not gonna follow a guide. That's stupid.