4 ms·

OKC pictures can probably be a tad misleading since they are often taken with poor quality camera phones and people will deliberately try to take photos at more

by jiggy2011 14y ago

OKC pictures can probably be a tad misleading since they are often taken with poor quality camera phones and people will deliberately try to take photos at more flattering angles. Also a lot of men will just spam these sites and send a message to every woman within X distance of them.

danso 14y ago
But there's several ways to dissect this data. For example, the number of unsolicited messages that a man gets and the number of followups (and perhaps, how fast those followup messages occur) is probably a good insight to how "attractive" he is. Now if you think its harder to determine this for females because the amount of noise that they get...then the computer can factor in the number of "attractive" men (as judged above) who fawn over you, either by messaging or stalky profile views. And of course, number of profile views (over time) and by repeat viewers (indicating the number of obsessed secret fans you have) is probably a good baseline to start from.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  This is true, but it depends how much more (or less) attractive one is made to look by their photos than how they actually look IRL.
  - nnnnni 14y ago
    There's also the classic myspace angle problem: http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/a1.jpg http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/200... turns into http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/a2.jpg http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/200...
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I did a similar experiment years back on hotornot years back. Took pictures of myself from various different angles and watched the scores after a few days. A self shot face picture got me about a 5-6. A side profile head shot got me about a 4 and a shot taken by a photographer friend with a good camera and my shirt half undone got me a 9.5 or something.
    - rooker 14y ago
      Okay but obviously we know that's not a real picture, but instead a hyperbole of a photo. Still proves your point, I suppose. It's fun meeting people in real life then finding them on Facebook and seeing their complete lie of a profile picture that makes them look 3-4 points higher on a 10 point scale than they really are.
      - nnnnni 14y ago
        I'm pretty sure that it's a real picture... I could be wrong, though.
brigade 14y ago
OKC actually did a blog post [1] about attractiveness by camera model, and (unsurprisingly?) photos taken by more expensive cameras were rated as more attractive than those taken by cheap camera phones. Obviously there's dozens of confounding variables (if you have an expensive camera, you're more likely to know how to take a good photo), but still. [1] http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/

danso 14y ago

But there's several ways to dissect this data. For example, the number of unsolicited messages that a man gets and the number of followups (and perhaps, how fast those followup messages occur) is probably a good insight to how "attractive" he is. Now if you think its harder to determine this for females because the amount of noise that they get...then the computer can factor in the number of "attractive" men (as judged above) who fawn over you, either by messaging or stalky profile views. And of course, number of profile views (over time) and by repeat viewers (indicating the number of obsessed secret fans you have) is probably a good baseline to start from.

jiggy2011 14y ago
This is true, but it depends how much more (or less) attractive one is made to look by their photos than how they actually look IRL.
- nnnnni 14y ago
  There's also the classic myspace angle problem: http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/a1.jpg http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/200... turns into http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/a2.jpg http://www.officialdatingresource.com/wp-content/uploads/200...
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I did a similar experiment years back on hotornot years back. Took pictures of myself from various different angles and watched the scores after a few days. A self shot face picture got me about a 5-6. A side profile head shot got me about a 4 and a shot taken by a photographer friend with a good camera and my shirt half undone got me a 9.5 or something.
  - rooker 14y ago
    Okay but obviously we know that's not a real picture, but instead a hyperbole of a photo. Still proves your point, I suppose. It's fun meeting people in real life then finding them on Facebook and seeing their complete lie of a profile picture that makes them look 3-4 points higher on a 10 point scale than they really are.
    - nnnnni 14y ago
      I'm pretty sure that it's a real picture... I could be wrong, though.

brigade 14y ago

OKC actually did a blog post [1] about attractiveness by camera model, and (unsurprisingly?) photos taken by more expensive cameras were rated as more attractive than those taken by cheap camera phones. Obviously there's dozens of confounding variables (if you have an expensive camera, you're more likely to know how to take a good photo), but still. [1] http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/