Talk:Rating site

message: (moved here from Talk:Rate-me site)
===Comment===
This aricle reads more like an advertisement for those rate-me sites than an encyclopedic article. for that reason, it should be deleted. --Revision as of 03:37, 18 July 2006 (edit)
User:69.59.203.122 (Talk)
===Removing all external links===
I removed all the external links, as there was clearly no attempt made to figure out which of them might be notable or well known sites and which weren't.  Links to a few such sites might be reasonable, linking to every one in existence is not.  See Wikipedia:External links. --Xyzzyplugh 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should keep some links as examples so people know what rate-me sites look like. Therefore, I've restored the "external links" section for now. However, most of those links seem to be spam, so I've also added the  tag. --Ixfd64 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rate-me sites talk

message: I removed all the external links, as there was clearly no attempt made to figure out which of them might be notable or well known sites and which weren't.  Links to a few such sites might be reasonable, linking to every one in existence is not.  See Wikipedia:External links. --Xyzzyplugh 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should keep some links as examples so people know what rate-me sites look like. Therefore, I've restored the "external links" section for now. However, most of those links seem to be spam, so I've also added the  tag. --Ixfd64 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing all external links

message: *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)
thread_title: Comment

message: (moved here from Talk:Hot or Not)
===Had to revert your comment even though it was true -- so sorry===
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)
thread_title: Hot or Not talk

message: 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)
thread_title: Had to revert your comment even though it was true -- so sorry

message: 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)
thread_title:  Voting system 

message: :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)
thread_title: Update

message: There doesn't seem to be a lot of editors involved in these pages, so I'm going to be bold and merge them all together to rating sites, then put each main site in chronological order, begin to add some sources, think about the pre-1999 history section, and try to organize the links per category.  If the article gets to long down the road, we can always do sub-topics back out again. --Sadi Carnot 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge update II

message: I've deleted the "Origin" section as a blatant copyvio - taken verbatim from http://www.hotornot.com/pages/about.html, right down to the "our friends".  Iridescent 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin section

message: For heaven's sake! We only just merged them... -  iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to split off Hot or Not

message: Very recently, User:JzG and I furthered the ongoing clean-up of this article by removing and organizing a bunch of links to external sites.  Although perhaps helpful or interesting to some, Wikipedia has guidelines against becoming a "link farm".  If there is a site you would like to add, please realize that our  verifiability policy requires that information be sourced, and relevant.  We are not a directory of businesses or an indiscriminate list of random information.  So please keep things tidy and organized.  So if you add a link and somebody deletes it, that is probably what happened.  Right now I have made a suggestion in the article that the standard for inclusion in the list is that a site should be either the subject of a proper Wikipedia article on its own, or somehow sourced by a citation to a reliable source.
Overall, this article still needs some sources, so any help is appreciated.  Thanks,  Wikidemo 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up and pruning 

message: ChaloNiZambia, this article has been around for fourteen years. If you really think it should be deleted, take it to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy? 

message: Please see Talk:Review_site#Merge_with_Rating_site. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Review site]]