Talk:Hot or Not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hotornot is badoo[edit]

Try logging in with your badoo credentials, you will succeed and get to your account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.123.159 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

  • note from james hon: actually, the average score on hotornot of all pictures submitted IS 5.5 (average of 1 to 10). However, pictures are only allocated more ratings as users continue to check their score. Due to a tendency for people with higher scores to stick around and check their scores longer, the pictures with higher scores tend to be shown more often.

This comment made by User:64.166.226.169, was moved from the talkpage. --Sjakkalle 07:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. This actually answers a question I had, which was: why does it seem that over time, only pictures rated 9+ get shown on the site? It kind of defeats the purpose of "or not". 71.95.231.67 (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had to revert your comment even though it was true -- so sorry[edit]

User:Zanimum added the comment that 7 of the top 10 girls were listed as being "gay/lesbian". I checked and it's true! My guess is that girls in this category get more "10" votes regardless of the appearance of their face. I also noticed that two of them were 50 years old, and one was in her forties. She was remarkably well preserved for her advanced age. Alas, truth is no defense for original research, which is the main reason the change couldn't stay in. Now, just get someone to publish an article in a reputable newspaper in which it is reported that 7 of the top 10 girls are gay, and that comment goes right back in the article!—GraemeMcRaetalk 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gee, one might even get the impression that someone was gaming the system... five of the top ten are also said to be six feet five inches tall (that's rounds off to 1.96 metres).--Pharos 03:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hot or Not is more-or-less reputable. Much of the content they produce is written. They provide this content for the consumption of the marketplace. In other words, the Hotornot site is a reputable publication. Any information taken directly from their site is not original research. I didn't see the comment in question, but if the Wikipedian feels the sexual orientation question is pertinent to the article, he or she could just make a table of top rated users and their basic information, citing Hotornot.com as the source. --24.123.158.30 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12.207.49.197 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Uh if it's true then i see no reason it shouldn't be in the aritcle , if i tell you the sun is bright and you go outside and you see that it's true , then i don't think we need an article to confirm what we can see for our selves . Of course i may have misinterperted what you wrote above.i'm new to wiki , ray 12.207.49.197 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system[edit]

Can someone provide a clearer explanation of the voting system for me? Like why the raw data shows different results than the average score, and how they interpret voting styles? As well as clarifying the paragraph in the article? Thanks, --Mercury1 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I am pretty confused about the voting system. I just joined. I have 11 ratings: 9,8,8,7,5,5,5,5,5,4, and 4. My score is 9.2. How is that possible when I don't have any score over 9? Well okay it can't be an average. It does seem to work out as a decile since the site claims that I am "hotter" than 91% of men. Maybe I won't sign this. I never rated anyone a 4 unless they were actively ugly, rather than merely plain at 5. Hehe. unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesKiddell (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Well now, the Sinebot put my name here. Oh well. Anyway, to update, another vote put my rating at 9.4, and HOTorNOT put me at "hotter" than 93%, so decile appears to be the formula. I am still smarting from all those 4s and 5s but that leads me to think the thing may be weighted (I love working these things out). My histogram is bimodal, centering around 8 and 5, with no 6s. I foolishly clicked on the photos of a bunch of pretty girls, who quite rightly punished my for my impudence by giving me a painfully low score. You have to check the ages, click on a 20 year old (i.e.,want to meet) when you are as elderly as I and you will pay. Since I still managed a high score I wonder if they weight the ratings in some fashion: say counting one's own age group higher, or discounting clumsy attempts at making a match. CharlesKiddell 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced so can't go in the main article, but fairly accurate summary of the HoN algorithm:
  1. All 1 & 10 votes discounted;
  2. All voters who only vote within a specific "range" (eg, never higher than 5, never lower than 7 etc) have their votes "rebalanced" to a 1-10 scale; voters who vote across the whole range have the 2-10 "rebalanced" to the 1-10 scale;
  3. The most common vote discounted for each user (to filter out people gaming the system by voting 2 or 3 more often than anything else;
  4. The resulting "processed" data used to produce the final score - since the bar charts show all votes, they can appear wildly different to the resulting score.
HoN (and almost all rating sites) also have an inbuilt systemic bias, in that only profiles which are regularly checked are submitted for voting. As people getting low scores tend not to return to check - or to resubmit another photo in the hope of getting a better score - this tends to always drive average ratings upwards — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, it is more complex than I thought, and you can't reveal your source. But it must be partly hearsay. I now have 174 ratings, and I know that a friend gave me a single 10 (a lie of course) and it doesn't show up on my histogram, but now I have several 1s that do show. Also, well I was wondering if there was some kind of moving average involved, but I don't know much about stats. It could just be some kind of law of large numbers but my rating has converged and moves up and down pretty tightly in a .3 range and has been there a while. Oh yeah, I don't have the option of rating MY matches, so I am wrong about the source of my frequent low ranking. All that pudding has done me no good.CharlesKiddell 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a burning urge to rate someone in particular from the "match" section, at the bottom of every profile should be two cut-and-pastable URLs, one ending "eid=" and one ending "emid=". Cutting & pasting those into your browser will take you to the "do you want to meet" and the "vote" page for that person respectively. Voting more than once from the same account won't be counted, as will votes on photos for people who haven't checked their rating for seven days — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can see and use the "emid=" but not the "eid=". Perhaps they removed the feature? I'd abuse it for sure. CharlesKiddell 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Whup! now under different circumstances I see the eid of another person but not the emid. When I WANT to see the eid of a double MATCH I can't see how to. p.s. double match and half match makes no sense. It's half match and match, or match and double match. Haploid and Diploid! CharlesKiddell 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The HoN score definitely does not look like an average of votes. I just did some maths with a picture, and 10 votes which would have made an average of 5.4; however, the Hot or Not rating says it is a 8.5, and "hotter than 83% of men on this site." The HoN score seems to show where a picture ranks in comparison with other pictures. If 49% of people score worse than you, that would make you a 5, and if 99% people score worse, you're a 10... even if your average of votes was much lower. "In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". At least that's my impression. Can anyone verify this, please? Linkfinder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.164.228 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the detailed answer to exactly this question that I've given directly above this, and all will be explained... — iridescent 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the the score is directly derived from the "hotter then" percentile. That is, the percentile is linearly mapped to the 1 to 10 range. Note that the lowest score is 1 so 0% is 1, 50% is 5.5 and 100% is 10. You can try this yourself: Divide the percentile by 100, multiply by 9 and add 1. You should get your score. Dsrbecky (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a talk with the service department about this. In the FAQ, it says the the scores are "normalized". It goes further to say that this is because some people "only vote 1 to 5 for whatever reason" but that if you do want the raw data it show the breakdown of how many people gave you each score. This option is now obsolete. So now, not only is their no way to see how people rated you, the rating they do give you is DURASTICALLY altered as the above comments point out to make sure people didn't rate you too low. So if you go onto the website to see how people rate your appearance it is almost entirely useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belielsprodigy (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning + possible merge[edit]

I'm going to give these two pages a little cleaning. I've done some research on these sites as well as other rating polls in the past, e.g. [http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/principles.html#anchor_119 here] are few rating sites I've collected and [http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/RP/Breast-Attraction-Repulsion.html here] is a before-and-after breast augmentation rating study. Leave questions or comments here about rating sites, in general, if you have them; I like rating sites. Also please don't delete all the external links; there are dozens of "rating sites" spin-offs that have emerged since hot-or-not, and good ones are hard to find. Many are very interesting and give telling information about human patterns. Also, I would favor a merge on all of these sites, i.e. Hot or Not, Rate-me site, and any others that crop up, to rating sites with a header-section to the main 3 to 5 sites. The latter name seems to confining, e.g. now that there are political rating sites, rate my personality, rate my legs, rate my dog, rate my teacher, etc. (click here, for a few examples, and click here, for about a 100 rating sites); moreover, in common language people refer to these as photo or personality “rating sites” not “rate-me sites”, as it is now. --Sadi Carnot 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I see that there isn’t a lot of flow on these two pages, and I see that anons like adding many links to these pages, e.g. such as this version. Many of these are just repeats of Hot or Not; some however, I’ve found, are tasteful and interesting, such as:
Kiss or Diss – Amateur Video, e.g. Humor, Dance, Misc, Etc., Rating Site
Anyway, I’ll try to sort out the good ones over coming weeks, maybe three good ones for each “category” or something along these lines. I’ll likely follow the following nutshell guideline:
I also want to write the history section, if anyone has any leads? I’ve read the history of how the 1-10 rating scale started (in the 1920s-70s?) somewhere, I’ll just have to dig around to find it? If there are no objections soon, I’ll likely merge all the related pages into “rating sites”, with a category “entertainment sites”. --Sadi Carnot 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link tracking update[edit]

Below are links that have been added and reverted lately by users. I'll put them here to get a consensus going.

Good[edit]

Decent[edit]

  • Rate My Voice – Rate Music: Pop, Rock, Country, R&B, and Random (this one seems cool)

So-So[edit]

Ambivalent[edit]

Weak[edit]

  • Rate Shots – Kind of lame, small pics, lots of ads.

Bad[edit]

--Sadi Carnot 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, the moderator's guide is now GONE - as it was attached to part of the modforum itself, and that was obliterated over a year ago :(

75.7.245.136 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to have some information on the moderation and modforums in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.204.131 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerging[edit]

In process of cleaning up rating sites. The merge wasn't done completely and the info from this site ended up being redundant and hogging most of that article. Examples should only move into parent articles either as short blurbs, or in cases where the parent article is mostly about the child subject. In this case it became something of a catdog article.

There's enough content for the article to stand by itself. It's not a terribly good article, and it needs sourcing. There should be more about the company and not just its website. But I'm pretty sure the company is notable and verifiable sources are out there. It gets written about all the time in the tech blogs so there must be some more significant publications. I'll find one or two and put them in a reference section, but I'll leave the rest of the cleanup to others. But please don't sweep this mess under the rug by dumping it back into rating sites. Wikidemo 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done for now. It still needs clean-up. Wikidemo 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HotorNot-screen-pic.jpg[edit]

Image:HotorNot-screen-pic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMoN[edit]

www.coolminiornot.com is an idea based on hot or not for miniature painters and scultops to have their works rated. is there some where in this article that would provide a place for that, or would it belong in some other article if the first mini voting website has any notability? shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating sites is what you're looking for. This is an article specifically about HoN the company, not the concept. – iridescent 19:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Bias[edit]

Heavy bias at the end of the history section. Someone knowledgeable about the subject may want to review it. 72.93.179.157 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HotorNot no longer rates[edit]

As of April 2012, it looks as if the hotornot.com site has undergone a complete revamp which means the site no longer allows people to rate users. I think this needs to be edited in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.181.1 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the original Hot or Not. Its current incarnation is a different product entirely, and frankly not relevant in this scope. I've updated the article to reflect this.71.183.57.188 (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

"Hot or Not was claimed to have been preceded by the rating sites RateMyFace, which claimed to have been launched a year earlier in the summer of 1999, and AmIHot.com, which was claimed to have been launched in January 2000 by MIT freshman Daniel Roy. A quick and easy check on archive.org disputes both these claims."

The indexing time of archive.org is not a reliable source of the launch date. The search on whois shows that the websites were registered as previously claimed. Note that the website registration date may not be the same as the registration date (as e.g., hotiornot.com, which was registered a year ahead of its start time). I updated the page to reflect these changes.

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.180.52 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hot or Not. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dating[edit]

no 2409:4050:E01:6B03:8499:F971:2F42:9BE2 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hot_or_Not&oldid=1201447840"