227:
203:
465:
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.
167:
77:
53:
283:
87:
946:
22:
520:
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.
155:
385:
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!—
752:
645:
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.
580:
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?
908:. 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
995:
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
919:
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
579:
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
530:
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
464:
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
418:
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
342:
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,
566:
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
493:
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
404:
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
384:
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
629:
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
519:
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
1135:
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
443:
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"
644:
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
677:
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. are few rating sites I've collected and is a before-and-after breast augmentation rating study. Leave questions or comments here about rating sites, in
1020:
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?
767:
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
1131:
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."
433:
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,
405:
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. --
481:
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
682:" 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.
180:
63:
694:
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
273:
361:
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".
1361:
1299:
992:
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with
Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
743:
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:
1108:
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.
1087:
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.
1336:
185:
920:
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.
395:
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).--
1331:
1341:
531:
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
1242:
1238:
1224:
1326:
139:
760:
Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.
1371:
145:
1356:
267:
488:
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.
973:, 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
970:
997:
989:
985:
962:
1346:
1321:
444:
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.
115:
1366:
1351:
1001:
862:
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 :(
1151:
661:
590:
459:
1109:
1069:
885:
322:
100:
58:
1303:
1094:
865:
362:
485:
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;
292:
213:
243:
234:
208:
722:
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
1376:
33:
1381:
1030:
172:
678:
general, if you have them; I like rating sites. Also please don't delete all the external links; there are dozens of "
605:
Read the detailed answer to exactly this question that I've given directly above this, and all will be explained...
981:
953:
787:
Below are links that have been added and reverted lately by users. I'll put them here to get a consensus going.
726:. Many of these are just repeats of Hot or Not; some however, I’ve found, are tasteful and interesting, such as:
1241:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
455:
1155:
657:
594:
39:
21:
1073:
1068:
Heavy bias at the end of the history section. Someone knowledgeable about the subject may want to review it.
703:, for about a 100 rating sites); moreover, in common language people refer to these as photo or personality “
326:
1113:
889:
869:
1147:
1090:
881:
649:
586:
562:
I can see and use the "emid=" but not the "eid=". Perhaps they removed the feature? I'd abuse it for sure.
447:
318:
1098:
366:
653:
568:
563:
521:
466:
451:
349:
1280:
1260:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1248:
635:
420:
415:
406:
226:
202:
114:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
958:
615:
581:
542:
505:
1202:
957:
is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
1007:
931:
921:
631:
878:
It would be interesting to have some information on the moderation and modforums in the article.
1245:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1261:
1184:
1026:
92:
475:
Unsourced so can't go in the main article, but fairly accurate summary of the HoN algorithm:
1276:
851:
773:
708:
386:
1268:
1192:
1048:
608:
534:
497:
974:
242:
on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
1227:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
353:
315:
Try logging in with your badoo credentials, you will succeed and get to your account.
1267:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1234:
945:
1315:
435:
282:
1128:
1039:
1022:
905:
769:
691:
687:
679:
381:
76:
52:
915:
There's enough content for the article to stand by itself. It's not a terribly
396:
1233:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1174:
700:
683:
162:
110:
105:
82:
818:– Rate Music: Pop, Rock, Country, R&B, and Random (this one seems cool)
1042:
is what you're looking for. This is an article specifically about HoN the
796:
1136:
ahead of its start time). I updated the page to reflect these changes.
1189:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
154:
239:
909:
1307:
1288:
1197:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
1159:
1117:
1102:
1077:
1057:
1033:
1010:
934:
924:
893:
873:
854:
776:
711:
665:
639:
623:
598:
571:
550:
524:
513:
469:
438:
423:
409:
399:
389:
370:
330:
238:, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major
1203:
https://web.archive.org/20150801070644/http://faceoftomorrow.com/
969:
Knowledge (XXG) article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
1206:
802:
733:
746:
377:
Had to revert your comment even though it was true -- so sorry
15:
815:
799:
Hot or Not
Moderating Guide – Basic Rating System Information
696:
1212:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
944:
343:
the pictures with higher scores tend to be shown more often.
281:
153:
838:
736:– Amateur Video, e.g. Humor, Dance, Misc, Etc., Rating Site
1173:
I have just added archive links to one external link on
104:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1178:
723:
1127:"Hot or Not was claimed to have been preceded by the
941:
Fair use rationale for Image:HotorNot-screen-pic.jpg
1362:
Start-Class
Websites articles of Unknown-importance
1237:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1000:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
272:This article has not yet received a rating on the
144:This article has not yet received a rating on the
930:Okay, done for now. It still needs clean-up.
805:– Rate Amateur Videos: Humor, Dance, Misc, Etc.
1337:Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
1223:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
990:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use rationale guideline
772:”, with a category “entertainment sites”. --
1332:Start-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
19:
1342:San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
879:
316:
197:
47:
707:” not “rate-me sites”, as it is now. --
841:– Kind of lame, small pics, lots of ads.
630:and add 1. You should get your score.
419:you wrote above.i'm new to wiki , ray
199:
49:
1327:Unknown-importance California articles
1300:2409:4050:E01:6B03:8499:F971:2F42:9BE2
797:http://modforum.hotornot.com/modguide/
124:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject California
1372:Unknown-importance Computing articles
7:
1357:Unknown-importance Websites articles
252:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Websites
98:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
690:, and any others that crop up, to
14:
1177:. Please take a moment to review
352:, was moved from the talkpage. --
181:San Francisco Bay Area task force
988:. Using one of the templates at
750:
699:, for a few examples, and click
478:All 1 & 10 votes discounted;
462:) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
225:
201:
165:
85:
75:
51:
20:
1347:WikiProject California articles
1322:Start-Class California articles
127:Template:WikiProject California
1367:Start-Class Computing articles
1011:05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
1002:Media copyright questions page
572:02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
551:15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
525:03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
514:19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
470:04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
1352:Start-Class Websites articles
1207:http://www.faceoftomorrow.com
1160:19:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
971:boilerplate fair use template
954:Image:HotorNot-screen-pic.jpg
855:05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
624:01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
599:00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
290:This article is supported by
255:Template:WikiProject Websites
178:This article is supported by
173:San Francisco Bay Area portal
118:and see a list of open tasks.
998:criteria for speedy deletion
894:18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
777:02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
712:04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
666:07:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
640:11:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
424:05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
410:17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
400:03:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
390:03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
1308:00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
1289:08:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
1058:19:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
935:17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
925:16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
371:07:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1398:
1254:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1195:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
1170:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1078:02:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
982:the image description page
904:In process of cleaning up
439:17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
146:project's importance scale
1118:03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
1103:15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
1034:22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
984:and edit it to include a
673:Cleaning + possible merge
331:22:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
289:
271:
220:
161:
143:
70:
46:
1083:HotorNot no longer rates
963:explanation or rationale
874:16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
758:This page in a nutshell:
356:07:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
232:This article is part of
1166:External links modified
494:average ratings upwards
1377:All Computing articles
949:
286:
158:
101:WikiProject California
64:San Francisco Bay Area
28:This article is rated
1382:All Websites articles
1046:, not the concept. –
965:as to why its use in
948:
348:This comment made by
293:WikiProject Computing
285:
157:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1235:regular verification
1220:to let others know.
1181:. If necessary, add
783:Link tracking update
235:WikiProject Websites
1225:After February 2018
1216:parameter below to
350:User:64.166.226.169
130:California articles
1230:InternetArchiveBot
986:fair use rationale
950:
287:
159:
34:content assessment
1287:
1255:
1150:comment added by
1093:comment added by
896:
884:comment added by
764:
763:
669:
652:comment added by
601:
589:comment added by
547:
510:
463:
450:comment added by
357:
333:
321:comment added by
311:hotornot is badoo
308:
307:
304:
303:
300:
299:
258:Websites articles
196:
195:
192:
191:
93:California portal
1389:
1283:
1282:Talk to my owner
1278:
1253:
1252:
1231:
1196:
1188:
1162:
1105:
1054:
1051:
961:but there is no
754:
753:
747:
668:
646:
622:
620:
613:
584:
549:
543:
540:
537:
512:
506:
503:
500:
445:
347:
274:importance scale
260:
259:
256:
253:
250:
229:
222:
221:
216:
205:
198:
175:
170:
169:
168:
132:
131:
128:
125:
122:
95:
90:
89:
88:
79:
72:
71:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1312:
1311:
1296:
1286:
1281:
1246:
1239:have permission
1229:
1190:
1182:
1168:
1145:
1125:
1088:
1085:
1066:
1052:
1049:
1018:
943:
902:
848:
835:
830:
825:
812:
793:
785:
751:
719:
675:
647:
616:
609:
606:
538:
535:
532:
501:
498:
495:
431:
379:
339:
313:
257:
254:
251:
248:
247:
211:
171:
166:
164:
129:
126:
123:
120:
119:
91:
86:
84:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1395:
1393:
1385:
1384:
1379:
1374:
1369:
1364:
1359:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1334:
1329:
1324:
1314:
1313:
1295:
1292:
1279:
1273:
1272:
1265:
1210:
1209:
1201:Added archive
1167:
1164:
1152:115.111.180.52
1124:
1121:
1084:
1081:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1017:
1014:
1008:BetacommandBot
942:
939:
938:
937:
901:
898:
859:
847:
844:
843:
842:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
820:
819:
811:
808:
807:
806:
800:
792:
789:
784:
781:
780:
779:
762:
761:
755:
745:
744:
740:
739:
738:
737:
728:
727:
718:
715:
674:
671:
654:Belielsprodigy
627:
626:
591:81.173.164.228
577:
576:
575:
574:
569:CharlesKiddell
564:CharlesKiddell
556:
554:
553:
522:CharlesKiddell
517:
516:
491:
490:
489:
486:
483:
479:
467:CharlesKiddell
452:CharlesKiddell
430:
427:
413:
412:
402:
378:
375:
374:
373:
345:
344:
338:
335:
312:
309:
306:
305:
302:
301:
298:
297:
288:
278:
277:
270:
264:
263:
261:
230:
218:
217:
206:
194:
193:
190:
189:
186:Low-importance
177:
176:
160:
150:
149:
142:
136:
135:
133:
116:the discussion
97:
96:
80:
68:
67:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1394:
1383:
1380:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1319:
1317:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1293:
1291:
1290:
1284:
1277:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1250:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1226:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1186:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1165:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1143:
1141:
1139:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1122:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1110:71.183.57.188
1106:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1082:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:72.93.179.157
1063:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1004:. Thank you.
1003:
999:
993:
991:
987:
983:
980:Please go to
978:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
955:
947:
940:
936:
933:
929:
928:
927:
926:
923:
918:
913:
911:
907:
899:
897:
895:
891:
887:
886:65.69.204.131
883:
876:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
857:
856:
853:
845:
840:
837:
836:
832:
827:
822:
817:
816:Rate My Voice
814:
813:
809:
804:
801:
798:
795:
794:
790:
788:
782:
778:
775:
771:
766:
765:
759:
756:
749:
748:
742:
741:
735:
732:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
720:
716:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
698:
693:
689:
685:
681:
672:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
642:
641:
637:
633:
625:
621:
619:
614:
612:
604:
603:
602:
600:
596:
592:
588:
583:
573:
570:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
552:
548:
546:
545:(talk to me!)
541:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
515:
511:
509:
508:(talk to me!)
504:
492:
487:
484:
480:
477:
476:
474:
473:
472:
471:
468:
461:
457:
453:
449:
441:
440:
437:
429:Voting system
428:
426:
425:
422:
421:12.207.49.197
417:
416:12.207.49.197
411:
408:
407:24.123.158.30
403:
401:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
383:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
341:
340:
336:
334:
332:
328:
324:
323:91.17.123.159
320:
310:
295:
294:
284:
280:
279:
275:
269:
266:
265:
262:
245:
241:
237:
236:
231:
228:
224:
223:
219:
215:
210:
207:
204:
200:
187:
184:(assessed as
183:
182:
174:
163:
156:
152:
151:
147:
141:
138:
137:
134:
117:
113:
112:
107:
103:
102:
94:
83:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1297:
1274:
1249:source check
1228:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1211:
1172:
1169:
1146:— Preceding
1138:
1134:
1129:rating sites
1126:
1107:
1095:194.70.181.1
1089:— Preceding
1086:
1067:
1047:
1043:
1040:Rating sites
1019:
1006:
994:
979:
966:
952:
951:
916:
914:
906:rating sites
903:
880:— Preceding
877:
866:75.7.245.136
864:
861:
858:
849:
803:Kiss or Diss
786:
770:rating sites
757:
734:Kiss or Diss
724:this version
705:rating sites
704:
692:rating sites
688:Rate-me site
680:rating sites
676:
643:
628:
617:
610:
578:
555:
544:
518:
507:
442:
432:
414:
382:User:Zanimum
380:
363:71.95.231.67
346:
317:— Preceding
314:
291:
244:project page
233:
179:
109:
99:
40:WikiProjects
852:Sadi Carnot
774:Sadi Carnot
709:Sadi Carnot
648:—Preceding
585:—Preceding
446:—Preceding
387:GraemeMcRae
30:Start-class
1316:Categories
1175:Hot or Not
1064:Heavy Bias
839:Rate Shots
828:Ambivalent
684:Hot or Not
582:Linkfinder
121:California
111:California
106:U.S. state
59:California
1275:Cheers. —
1269:this tool
1262:this tool
912:article.
900:Unmerging
567:Diploid!
354:Sjakkalle
214:Computing
1185:cbignore
1148:unsigned
1091:unsigned
1031:contribs
975:fair use
959:fair use
932:Wikidemo
922:Wikidemo
882:unsigned
662:contribs
650:unsigned
632:Dsrbecky
587:unsigned
460:contribs
448:unsigned
436:Mercury1
319:unsigned
249:Websites
240:websites
209:Websites
1285::Online
1214:checked
1179:my edit
1123:History
1044:company
1023:shadzar
337:Comment
1294:dating
1193:nobots
910:catdog
810:Decent
717:Update
482:scale;
397:Pharos
36:scale.
1053:scent
1050:iride
823:So-So
618:scent
611:iride
539:scent
536:iride
502:scent
499:iride
1304:talk
1218:true
1156:talk
1114:talk
1099:talk
1074:talk
1027:Talk
1016:CMoN
967:this
917:good
890:talk
870:talk
833:Weak
791:Good
701:here
697:here
658:talk
636:talk
595:talk
456:talk
367:talk
327:talk
1298:no
1243:RfC
1205:to
1144:]
846:Bad
607:—
533:—
496:—
268:???
140:???
108:of
1318::
1306:)
1256:.
1251:}}
1247:{{
1191:{{
1187:}}
1183:{{
1158:)
1142:]
1140:]
1116:)
1101:)
1076:)
977:.
892:)
872:)
850:--
686:,
664:)
660:•
638:)
597:)
458:•
434:--
369:)
329:)
212::
188:).
62::
1302:(
1271:.
1264:.
1154:(
1112:(
1097:(
1072:(
1029:|
1025:|
888:(
868:(
768:“
656:(
634:(
593:(
454:(
365:(
325:(
296:.
276:.
246:.
148:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
