Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Avatars Used For Australian Online Sex Appeal Study

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-that's-a-research-job dept.

Australia 175

An anonymous reader writes "Australian scientists are seeking volunteers online to help them better understand sexual attraction. At a specially created website — www.bodylab.biz — users can go online and make their own ratings of computer-generated avatar images of men and women of greatly varying shapes, sizes, and proportions. The bodyLab team will analyse and compile the results and each month will cull about half of the images — those that are least popular — and virtually 'breed' new body shapes from parent avatars with features rated as most attractive by people taking part in the experiment. Over time, the scientists hope thousands of users will help them work through six or more generations of avatars to narrow down the special combinations of features that make up the 'ideal' body — although they're keeping an open mind about whether several combinations will emerge."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Click here for girst sexy! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217632)

You can particpate wonderful in elaborate program for studying of effects for sexual arousal simulation. Please find our new program! And kindly provided your payment processing information so we can wire you the money!

Well that was obnoxious (5, Interesting)

senorbum (1795816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217656)

Its honestly quite difficult to tell which grey cartoon body model is more attractive. I tried doing it, but I really just felt like I was making the ratings up...There are a few that looked like ogres that I could tell weren't attractive to me, but honestly that was about it.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217678)

They were all unattractive to me. Maybe they're starting from the bottom and working their way up but it seems to me that would indicate they didn't randomly choose the initial parameters of the models, so what would the point be?

Lookout! Now posting to 4chan (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217718)

Apple must be funding this to make new iPod ads.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (4, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217728)

so what would the point be?

Yeah, I did it too, what a horrible bunch of models. It seems as if the whole thing only has one sliding scale for inflating the model.

Also, the site just timed out three times when I tried to get their "overall progress" stats due to a sql timeout error. Stay classy bodylab.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218108)

I just felt mean at the end of that.

The men were terrifyingly triangular with shoulders that couldn't fit through doorways, or emancipated starving old men, or jello-molds of boomer-villains. The women were even worse -- board-straight, afterthoughts for boobs, not a curve to be found anywhere. 100 ratings of models for each sex, and not a single creature rated above 1.

I enjoy being as catty as the next woman -- I spent my afternoon drinking coffee and taunting the terrible, terrible fashion choices of this year's prom-going crowd and their awful gladiator stripper heels -- but that's because I'm dismayed by people making themselves look like shit. But these models are hopeless! Someone pointed out the terrible posture, someone else the tiny, tiny feet, but the very worst bit was the proportions. Many, many body types can be attractive, but only if it looks like all the pieces belong on the same body. I feel sad for these little hypothetical grey people, and their Frankenstein'ed limbs, stretched shoulders, and weirdly defined gauntness.

And I feel mean for judging them so harshly. They can't help it that the researchers are dicks who purposely made this a game of "not-hot, or event not-hotter?"

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218246)

Board straight models? All the ones I saw were at least a little fat. Some of them actually looked like contenders for sumo wrestling or "world's strongest man" (and these were the females). Highest I got was a 2, and I have a feeling that if I'd got her first I probably would have rated her as a 0 or 1, but looking at all the heifers slightly altered my perceptions temporarily. *shudder*

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218344)

Nah, there were some thin curvy ones and there were some thin curve-less ones, and there were some thin curve-less with big breasts and some thin curve-less with small breasts and some with long torsos and some with shorter torsos and some with long legs and some with shorter legs and curvy with big breasts and... not that I spent much time on it...

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

Takichi (1053302) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218392)

The scaling wasn't done very well either. I rated some models less attractive because there were some strange polygons sticking out where they shouldn't have, like around the shoulder area.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218712)

It's not JUST the scaling. Every model has utterly broken proportions, a posture that just isn't human, and out of the whole thing I'm not even sure the hands, feet, or breasts ever changed size.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217752)

I threw up in my mouth a little. No one will breed with them. Not even in the back seat of that vw bug.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217870)

Ugly because they didn't randomly choose the initial parameters... Geez, have you ever tried to play The Sims and hit the 'randomize' button a few times? Random generation can give you horrifying mockeries of humans with a quickness, even if you're just messing with some facial parameters...

Desperately seeking Rosanne Barr Aliens (5, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217736)

I think what is happening is that the grey aliens are getting older, fatter and more lonely since being captured at Area 51 and exposed to a high fat and sedentary American superspy lifestyle. With this study they hope to find the ip addresses of those attracted to grey blobs and abduct you later tonight for a little probing.

Re:Desperately seeking Rosanne Barr Aliens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218342)

So what you are saying is that the only way some Slashdotters are ever going to get laid is if they are abducted like some plot involving the Lone Gunmen on the X-Files and raped by obese aliens? Yea, ok I buy that.

I would suggest lubing up before you get abducted boys and bring some strong^2 mints.

Re:Desperately seeking Rosanne Barr Aliens (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218486)

Thank you for brightening my day. :))

Re:Well that was obnoxious (2, Insightful)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217744)

Its honestly quite difficult to tell which grey cartoon body model is more attractive. I tried doing it, but I really just felt like I was making the ratings up...There are a few that looked like ogres that I could tell weren't attractive to me, but honestly that was about it.

I think you may have proved the point of the study. It is a study of body type perception. Many DID look similar, but I tried my best to be honest and rate it according my preference. Whether that is a general perception, the study will no doubt determine over time.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217824)

Not to mention they all had sharp knees.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217858)

help them work through six or more generations of avatars to narrow down the special combinations of features that make up the 'ideal' body

This will help them in determining which things need to be censored. Not sure if it'll be the things that turn the most people on, or the things that turn the minority on... Stay tuned

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218272)

There seems to be a real bias for elongated pelvic area and feet roughly half the size of the ankle. I guess I don't mind them sensoring either of those.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217910)

".There are a few that looked like ogres that I could tell weren't attractive to me, but honestly that was about it."

Made my day :p

Re:Well that was obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217916)

It's the tiny feet and hands that creep me out. They look like some bizarre carny-alien cross breed.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218128)

It's the tiny feet and hands that creep me out. They look like some bizarre carny-alien cross breed.

...who were either locked in a dungeon and fed gruel, withering away to gaunt, leathery beasts, or fed on the other creatures in the dungeon and grew to giant, jiggling tormentors.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

sick_soul (794596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218054)

I never rated > 0;
I got either the ogres, or some sort of male or genderless body with tits.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218126)

Well shit why don't you submit some hentai at least they'll have BOOBs, even on the ogres.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218224)

for me, if they'd given me a tool with sliders for waist side, hips size, boob side, height, I would have shown them what I like in women.
And to be frank, the description is easy: a tall top model with big boobs.
Am I the only one? Do they really need to make a study???

Re:Well that was obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218658)

You are not the only one, but I like
shorter-than-me women with small breasts,
therefore not everyone likes "tall top models with big boobs".

Re:Well that was obnoxious (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218292)

The results of this experiment will be a perfectly statistical model of the ideal female for 20-30 year old guys living in their parents' basement who could only dream of even the ugliest of those bodies.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (1)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218336)

True, impossible to judge.. I realized that after I'd rated 5 and they were all -3 And what the hell is with their pubic areas? They were like flat triangles. Black silhouettes would have been much more affective.

Re:Well that was obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218766)

Mine just showed me a bunch of pictures of fat chicks.

Ok, wait... (-1, Flamebait)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217688)

"Now I'm gonna stick my thumb up this alligator's butt! Cricky! He's angry now!!

Is that the kind of sex we're talking about from Australia, 'cause if it is, there ain't nothing appealing about it at all...

Re:Ok, wait... (1)

Anthony (4077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217714)

What have alligators got to do with Australia?

Re:Ok, wait... (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217950)

Seriously, What a croc!

Re:Ok, wait... (1)

Trecares (416205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217962)

Crocodile Dundee? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090555/ [imdb.com]

Re:Ok, wait... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218080)

Crocodile's =/= Alligators

Re:Ok, wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218154)

You fucking idiot.

sample (0, Troll)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217726)

...users can go online and make their own ratings of computer-generated avatar images of men and women

So start with adult population of Australia
Then, Subtract adults who have jobs, families, hobbies, and no time for silly things like this
From that, subtract the single college student who has any wisp of maturity or enlightement
From that, subtract old-timers with no interest in the Interwebz
So who's left? Alcoholics, the unemployable, angry loners...?

Re:sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217754)

So who's left? Alcoholics, the unemployable, angry loners...?

and most of slashdot

Re:sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217936)

Its the internet, you don't start with an adult population. Certainly not in Australia, a land where people can view snoop dog blowing pot rings from his hummer but can't be trusted to play fallout 3.

I guess you get a lot of teenagers and scientific types who really don't have time but won't admit that this study is pointless.

On the other hand, alcoholics, the unemployable, and angry loners wouldn't waste their time on this crap, they would just complain about it on /. (luckily they aren't the only contributers, just the ones who still read submitted by kdawson and bother to read it)

Re:sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217972)

posted to clear moderation mistake (is there any other way?)

Re:sample (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218018)

Don't be so dismissive. With the firewall that the government is trying to force on us, this will be the closest thing that Aussies will get to see porn. And speaking of being political, did anyone notice that one of the grey, bland, featureless male models was actually a picture of our Prime Minister? I wonder how many people will spot that.

Re:sample (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218030)

It will be like whacking off to those grey-faced golems that were all sitting down during that legendary anti-Orwellian commercial from the 80's [youtube.com] , how appropriate.

Re:sample (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218164)

Australians are so used to seeing the opposition leader in his budgie smugglers I think they'll hardly notice.

Re:sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218158)

Do I score a hat trick for all three?

Re:sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218192)

You forgot to subtract people who live in abandoned cars out in the boonies. IOW, abbo's.

The name is wrong (0)

Alarash (746254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217750)

Clearly, they meant to use the boobylab.biz domain but misspelt it.

Slashdotted. (1)

Sowelu (713889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217774)

Yeah...

Re:Slashdotted. (2, Interesting)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217836)

And so now there are a ton of nerds going off to see if they can remember what a real woman looks like. I think we may have just spoiled their test. After a few days the results will show that the ideal woman is a Japanese cat-like alien creature with a built in modem and touchscreen. I guess the next questions would be "Does she run Linux?"

Women run OpenBSD (3, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218016)

Women are far more arcane than Linux, I would wager many of my ex-gfs ran OpenBSD because by default their ports were all closed.

Re:Women run OpenBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218298)

Have you tried using finger, before you use mount?

Re:Women run OpenBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218314)

It is better learn how to `man mount`

Re:Slashdotted. (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218096)

After a few days the results will show that the ideal woman is a Japanese cat-like alien creature with a built in modem and touchscreen.

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

The posture makes all the models unattractive (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217786)

I tried rating 4 different sets of models and I just couldn't find any that I could honestly rate above a 0. No matter what sized model I was shown, it seemed like there was something decidedly strange, disproportionate unattractive about their characteristics.

Then it hit me: It's the posture. The "blender pose" is just not a way that real humans go around holding their body. It seems fake, shows off all the wrong parts of the body, and exaggerates features of the model that would appear normally proportioned in a regular standing pose.

Given that (imo) gaping flaw in the dataset, I predict this will turn out to be another junk project that spawns CNN headlines like "Scientists find the perfect bodytype, and it's not what you expect!".

Re:The posture makes all the models unattractive (1)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218596)

I think there was some really odd proportioning going on as well. I didn't do any measuring, but it seems to me that the relative height of the pelvis in proportion to other bones is exaggerated, and the angles of some of the joints are wrong/uncommon for joints that don't actually move on the axis in question, making them all seem basically like they were suffering from various kinds of genetic abnormalities or aberrations. I don't know if this is the ultimate political intent (people think that disabled people are ugly) or what, but certainly these bodies aren't proportioned (not shaped, but proportioned) or geometrically similar to any I've personally seen in real life.

In short: they all look weird, and it's not just because they're avatars, it's because they're weird avatars.

Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam (2, Funny)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217788)

Okay ladies, whose more attractive? Fudd or Sam? What would their kids look like? A cartoon Hot or Not. Is this for some masters student's thesis?

I took the test... (1)

shawnkirst (188856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217812)

...and my score was roughly 0.95. My highest rated model (which I gave a 3), had an average score of 1.36. Eye of the beholder, I suppose... The only models I really scored 0 were models that lacked any hip definition. Basically, models that looked like dudes with tits. A sight that is all too common here in America. Get a treadmill, America.

Re:I took the test... (1)

shawnkirst (188856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217816)

... that should read "scored less than 0"

All the feet were messed up. (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217826)

The feet were the same size (pretty small), which made some of the larger women look very disproportionate and therefore less attractive. And WTF was up with that subliminal car drawing in the background??

Re:All the feet were messed up. (4, Informative)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217840)

I think the car was to give you a sense of height.

Re:All the feet were messed up. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217848)

On some models, also width.

Re:All the feet were messed up. (3, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217980)

I thought it was to check if you could fuck the person you were looking at in the back of a VW bug.

Re:All the feet were messed up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217844)

Scale so you can judge height.

2/3 of the ones I got couldn't have been over 12 years old. Ugh instant 3... err -3... yeah.

Dang... (3, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217834)

Where did they get those pics of me???

Re:Dang... (5, Funny)

What the Frag (951841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217856)

Full-body scanners from the airport?

Re:Dang... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217948)

Perv scanners of course! Apparently my tin foil underwear works.

Re:Dang... (2, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218004)

Are they all of TSA employees? The male genitalia looks to be of interest mostly to medical journals, freak shows and collectors of diminutive Japanese male penis Polaroids.

Misleading (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217862)

The test really was seeing how attractive fat women are to most people. None of the figures were what I'd consider thin and only one wasn't obviously fat. They were various shapes of fat but still fat. There are lots of body types that aren't fat. They'd save 10 minutes of the testers time to first find out do you find fat women attractive. If yes proceed otherwise you are now finished with the test.

Re:Misleading (1)

jakobX (132504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217958)

Yeah..this was a weird test. My highest rating was a minus 2.

Maxx Shredder (0, Offtopic)

noserzena (1812068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217884)

Happiness doesn't depend on any external conditions, it is governed by our mental attitude. When you make a commitment to a relationship. Maxx Shredder [maxxshredder.net]

That's not how men work (4, Interesting)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217890)

A normal guy wouldn't rate a woman 0-10 in his head, but rather a "yes" or a "no",
Also. this "experiment" while interesting doesn't count for men getting horny, looking at pictures of naked women makes us horny, after a while our "reptilian brain" takes over and almost everything looks attractive.

It would be interesting to measure that in the data ... How after 5-8 clicks, every fat blob gets increased sex appeal.

Re:That's not how men work (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217912)

Since when is there a no?

Re:That's not how men work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218052)

There has been a 'no' ever since the rise of the hambeast.

Be glad that you do not know that evil thing,
manning the harpoons will not bring it down,
and nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure.

Please do not bread with the hambeast, you'll only increase their numbers.

Re:That's not how men work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218226)

Please do not bread with the hambeast, you'll only increase their numbers.

But baking them is still okay, right?

Re:That's not how men work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218364)

I shall be warning your mother.

Re:That's not how men work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218014)

Looking at pictures of models makes women depressed.
Looking at pictures of models makes husbands find their wife a bit more unattractive, and single people picky on appearance.
The people on these pictures do not exist as such, the pictures are digitally enhanced to improve our attraction response.
Why do we let ourselves get depressed by non-existing things?

Re:That's not how men work (2, Interesting)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218208)

I would assume because most of us have seen existing things and because of alcohol or inability to determine the differences at a glance (because the girlfriend was there and staring is unacceptable under such circumstances), we actually believe that digitally enhanced model is not only possible, but exists at the local pub.

By the way, you don't have to be married to find unattractive people as such. Most husbands didnt choose to get married because their wives rivaled models (in fact, relationships based on looks alone are either quite empty or about to end, or both).

On the other hand, when couples watch adult content, it often improves relationships. I don't know how to explain that, it must be biological. It even works if the heterosexual couple watches two girls go at it (I can't speak for whether watching two guys go at it helps a relationship, as I have neither scientific study nor personal experience).

I have no idea why you get depressed by the fact that technology allows us to create images of more perfect beings than ourselves...personally, I enjoy it.

Re:That's not how men work (0, Flamebait)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218320)

You're probably fat. So put down that bag of sweets and get out of your chair and get some exercise. If you're fat, you're unattractive, no matter how many other endearing qualities you possess. Don't bitch that the rest of us are "picky". We're picky because we don't carry excess weight.

Re:That's not how men work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218418)

You seem to have no idea about what people find attractive beyond your own opinion. I find slightly overweight or fat girls more attractive than skinny girls, especially those stereotyped "pretty" girls generally found in advertisement. My gf is slim but has fatty skin which I find extremely attractive.

Re:That's not how men work (2, Interesting)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218734)

You seem to have no idea about what people find attractive beyond your own opinion. I find slightly overweight or fat girls more attractive than skinny girls, especially those stereotyped "pretty" girls generally found in advertisement. My gf is slim but has fatty skin which I find extremely attractive.

Firstly, I don't need to have any idea about what you, personally, find attractive. What I know is what the majority of people find attractive. Of course there are outliers, but outliers don't invalidate the phrase "What most people find attractive"

Secondly, it's not actual weight or fat that makes a certain body unattractive, it's the general shape. Women need to have some sort of hourglass-sh figure. Last I checked, for women the ideal ratio of chest:waist:hip was 1:0.7:1 (or similar). There is a similar ratio that applies to men (shoulders:hip).

Basically, feel free to be any shape you want, but don't dare bitch that fewer people find that shape unattractive. It takes work and willpower to look good, and if you have neither don't bitch that the people who do expend the effort don't find you attractive. If you want to be attractive to a larger portion of the population, hey, then do the fucking work.

Re:That's not how men work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218176)

Also. this "experiment" while interesting doesn't count for men getting horny, looking at pictures of naked women makes us horny, after a while our "reptilian brain" takes over and almost everything looks attractive.

Whelp, it certainly didn't have that effect on me. Probably because they don't really appear human: no head, freakishly tiny feet, disproportionately short legs.

Most of them looked like straight from morbidlyobesegranniesgetiton.com. Good way to counter the effect you described. Maybe that was intentional for exactly that reason; at least they could claim it to be so. It's a feature :D

Re:That's not how men work (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218200)

A normal guy wouldn't rate a woman 0-10 in his head, but rather a "yes" or a "no",

I don't know about that, fuzzy logic [wikipedia.org] is a pretty good approximation of we consider seemingly boolean conditions like hot/cold or attractive/unattractive.

Re:That's not how men work (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218492)

>"looking at pictures of naked women makes us horny, after a while our "reptilian brain" takes over and almost everything looks attractive"

Er.... No.

Re:That's not how men work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218550)

after a while our "reptilian brain" takes over and almost everything looks attractive.

Everything with a hole in it?

I've never heard it called a "reptilian" response before, but I guess the further one goes back in evolution, the less relevant aesthetics become?

The server crashed (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217970)

under the weight of rendering all those fat chicks.

Re:The server crashed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218076)

Seriously. Going by the averages at the end of the experiment, they're going a little overboard in the name of pointing out that most people don't like looking at fat chicks. I think the most attractive image I saw was the VW in the background.

They are doing it wrong (4, Insightful)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218038)

You should be shown 2 or more models at a time and be asked to choose the best looking one. Rating each one individually on a scale is worthless.

Re:They are doing it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218706)

Definitely. I rated quite a few, then when the next image came up thought 'oh I rated the one before too high'.

Really bizarre data set. I know what kind of women I find attractive (short, perky) they could have just asked or let me adjust the parameters to find my ideal. Instead I was just clicking average/low until that kind of avatar turned up.

I also prefer them with a more human skin tone, but that's just me.

Did anyone else notice the Volkswagen Beetle? (1)

josgeluk (842109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218062)

Behind each of the models, there is a faint picture of a Volkswagen Beetle. At first I thought of some form of subliminal advertising, but they must have needed some way to show relative height. And a Beetle is of course fairly universal.

Bah. You all got it wrong. (3, Funny)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218084)

Bah. You all got it wrong.

If you look closely, you can see a watermark-like image of a Volkswagen Beetle behind the models.

This made things much easier. I simply imagined trying some heavy-petting in the back seat with each model. That instantly ruled out the models with gigantism, the Ogres and left exactly one model with a snowballs chance in hell...and she still got a -1.

In all seriousness, the second time I tried it I got different results. I actually rated one of the models a +1 on the second time. Probably because she didn't look like she was on a diet of pure corn-syrup and might actually fit in the car.

Where are the /b/rothers? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218110)

You all know what will happen.
Some Anonymous Coward will post this to 4chan.

And then the hambeast will be chosen as the most beautiful body type.

Chill, dudes (1)

identity0 (77976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218138)

Hey, I saw it in theaters and thought it was okay, but you won't see me getting aroused [wordpress.com] or suicidal [cnn.com] over it...

lesson learned from the experiment: don't use java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218222)

$Subject

Mmm, ponytail sex! (1)

FlipperAnubi (1612915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218278)

I find Avatar to be very sexually appealing. Oh, not the movie. Damn.

RENDERED NIPS OR GTFO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218306)

I can't fap to this.

Re:RENDERED NIPS OR GTFO (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218510)

You can see a little slit though. I fapped.

Should have given it a better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218368)

My suggestion would be todoornottodo.biz
That biz on the end makes it even better.

HotOrNot clone with avatars. That's hot.

Me and her / him / it in the Beetle, aw yeah, i'm not complaining, it isn't real so might as well enjoy it in my head while i get the chance.
Oh, wait, Australia...

Insecurity Scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218452)

Great, another way to assist people in feeling even more insecure about their bodies.

Only this time they'll be able to quantify how 'unideal' you are.

Old fashioned concept of ethnicity (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218682)

They want you to pick a single country that defines where your ancestors are primarily from.

Good luck with that one.

At least on a paper survey when they say "Pick one" I can ignore them and pick 2 then it's their problem, but with this stupid web widget I have to pick just one.

If the president can't accurately pick one how can I? :)

Visual Basic? (1)

cOldhandle (1555485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218752)

The website seems to be using Visual Basic?!?! Errors I'm getting:

Server Error in '/' Application.
Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.

Source Error:

Line 51:
Line 52: Public Function GetAverageRatings_Top1(ByVal intSetID As Integer) As DataSet
Line 53: objDS = objDBStats.GetAverageRatings_Top1(intSetID)
Line 54: Return objDS
Line 55: End Function

Source File: C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\App_Code\Business\Stats.vb Line: 53

Stack Trace:

[SqlException (0x80131904): Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.]
Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.Container.InvokeMethod(Method TargetProcedure, Object[] Arguments, Boolean[] CopyBack, BindingFlags Flags) +202
Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.NewLateBinding.LateGet(Object Instance, Type Type, String MemberName, Object[] Arguments, String[] ArgumentNames, Type[] TypeArguments, Boolean[] CopyBack) +275
HAP.Stats.GetAverageRatings_Top1(Int32 intSetID) in C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\App_Code\Business\Stats.vb:53
Stats.GetAverageRatings_Top1() in C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\stats\Stats.vb:85
Stats.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) in C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\stats\Stats.vb:60
System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +99
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +50
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +627

Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.3603; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.4049

that was fugly (2, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218764)

God, only one time there was a 0 rating from me, everything else was -3, -2 and -1 and honestly, I did not like a single one of them, how do they come up with these models, did they take the LOTR Orcs or something?

top quality coding there (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218784)

Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.

Source Error:

Line 51:
Line 52: Public Function GetAverageRatings_Top1(ByVal intSetID As Integer) As DataSet
Line 53: objDS = objDBStats.GetAverageRatings_Top1(intSetID)
Line 54: Return objDS
Line 55: End Function

Source File: C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\App_Code\Business\Stats.vb Line: 53

Stack Trace:

[SqlException (0x80131904): Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.]
      Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.Container.InvokeMethod(Method TargetProcedure, Object[] Arguments, Boolean[] CopyBack, BindingFlags Flags) +202
      Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.NewLateBinding.LateGet(Object Instance, Type Type, String MemberName, Object[] Arguments, String[] ArgumentNames, Type[] TypeArguments, Boolean[] CopyBack) +275
      HAP.Stats.GetAverageRatings_Top1(Int32 intSetID) in C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\App_Code\Business\Stats.vb:53
      Stats.GetAverageRatings_Top1() in C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\stats\Stats.vb:85
      Stats.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) in C:\HostingSpaces\bodylabb\bodylab.biz\bodyLab\stats\Stats.vb:60
      System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +99
      System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +50
      System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +627

- I would rate that there was no button to be clicked.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?