Well I've done it. I figured out a fool proof way to determine

>>38136529
tinder is trash. either looksmax yourself or dont bother

>>38136529
God speed robot. You take a scientific oriented approach to rejection. That's admirable.

>I was trying to get only integers
You just need to round down anon

>>38136529
Im a 5/10 and I've gotten 11 matches in 3 days. You just gotta have a good quirky bio

File: 1483431315892.png (148KB, 225x464px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 225x464px

>>38136529
really makes me think desu
oregon

>>38136615
>You just gotta have a good quirky bio

Ew. So fucking lame. Stop trying to be clever for once and just describe yourself without any puns, emojis, or other bullshit.

>>38136687
This is why u get no pussy, autismo

>>38136597
but if I round down then I'm zero which I find unlikely and comical

>>38136529
To test how attractive you are:
>Take a picture of your face
>Draw a line down the centre of your face in Photoshop
>Mirror your face along that line
>Compare this to your face irl, the closer you are to the symmetrical face, the more attractive you are

File: Untitled.png (31KB, 2000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 2000x1250px

That system doesn't work.

Chad is a 10/10, so you assume that whatever percentage of responses you get compared to Chad correlates to your percentage of being a 10/10 (i.e. if you get 30% of the responses that chad gets, you'd assume you're a 3/10)

But it doesn't work like that.

Let's say a 10/10 Chad gets 100 matches. A 9/10 Chad will get about 80 matches. An 8/10 Chad will get about 60 matches. A 7/10 guy will get about 30 matches. A 6/10 guy will get about 10 matches. A 5/10 guy will get about 3 matches.

pic related

>>38136779
>tfw chad is a curve graph equation

>>38136730
Post le quirky bio

>>38136779
why does everything come back to fucking bell curves

>>38136946
that aint a bell curve

>>38136962
yeah midway through posting i remebered that but decided to just leave it and see if anyone got really really upset over it. guess not. darn

>>38136779
So what does the formula look like if not y=mx? where m = 1? are you saying I could be a 3/10?

>>38136946
thats not a bell curve...

>>38136935
"Your mom would love me"

>>38136779

very nice, Anon

so OP what you're going to need to do is model an exponential curve

>>38137099
>So what does the formula look like if not y=mx? where m = 1?
I dunno. It's gonna be something like that graph. I obviously don't know the exact info.

If you really wanted to develop a scientific basis for determining your looks, you should try checking out some of the research done on online dating. If I remember correctly, okcupid released stats on reply rates. You could use that and get a formula.

>are you saying I could be a 3/10?
Yeah, you probably are. You got 1/25th of the matches that a 10/10 guy got. I would say that makes you a 3/10. But I'm just guessing. 1 person isn't statistically significant, however. It could have been a bot. 25 people isn't statistically significant, either. You'd need to have a larger sample size if you wanted to be more certain.

>>38137099
attractiveness%=16.8*ln(like%)+52.3

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

if you have a 4% like rate, then you aren't a 0.4. you're actually a -3.2.

>>38137099
you plot looks against the log of matches or something. so it would be something like y=mx^2 or what have you. whatever fits the data well. I think the best way to do this is have some sort of study where you have these pictures and have people rate them from 1-10, then see how many matches those get, and formulate a relationship.

then, anyone can tell what they are out of 10 based on matches on some degenerate ((smartphone)) app.