May 18th, 2006


Previous Entry Next Entry
03:33 am - Maverick Magazine Exclusive: The 50 Hottest Women Alive - 2006 Edition

(108 comments | Leave a comment)

 
Maverick Magazine Exclusive: The 50 Hottest Women Alive - 2006 Edition - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 18th, 2006 - 12:21 pm (Link)
thanx... #16 was Natalie. Fixed it.

Current FHM top 10:Current Maxim top 10:
10. Teri Hatcher10. Christina Millian
9. Carmen Electra9. Kiera Knightley
8. Maria Sharapova8. Kate Bosworth
7. Jenny McCarthy7. Cameron Diaz
6. Halle Berry6. Scarlett Johannson
5. Keira Knightley5. Stacy Keibler
4. Jessica Simpson4. Angelina Jolie
3. Jessica Alba3. Lindsay Lohan
2. Angleina Jolie2. Jessica Alba
1. Scarlett Johansson1. Eva Longoria


Carmen was 85 on the Maxim list. Milla appeared on neither. So I don't know about Milla. She's kinda off the radar these days (though maybe not, she did have Ultraviolet recently, and is
making anoter Resident Evil movie now). But Carmen is pretty mainstream still. Hmm... any other thoughts?
[User Picture]From: muh0m0r Date: May 18th, 2006 - 03:10 pm (Link)
Yeah. The results are somewhat skewed in favor of those who are more mainstream/on-radar. Those who are fresh in memory will appear on more lists. And even if on any individual list they rank lower, their total score will be higher. How else would Lucy Liu be (so far) ahead of Christina Aguilera (this couldn't possibly happen a few years ago) and even Jessica Alba?

What this poll has measured is hotness weighted by popularity. A fairer way to measure hotness would be to give people a list of, say, 500 women and have them order it.

Of course, all of the above is highly subjective and debatable. Not to mention that there's no voting scheme that cannot be manipulated.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 18th, 2006 - 05:52 pm (Link)
well the entire point was to get a list that was the communities, and not any one person's. I think it was quite fair. If I had listed 500 women and asked you to rank, first of all, it would have been skewed by my 500 choices, and second, no one would have done it!

But yes, I did design the scoring system such that if one person got two 10s and the other person got four 5s, the person with the 5s would win. That just feels fairer to me, even though it got some of my personal picks burned.

Anyway, why would you say that Lucy Liu shouldn't be able to beat Xtina? I wouldn't have expected any less. Jessica Alba, was kinda a wash, but Lucy is only 1 vote and 8 points up. There are a lot of people who don't like Jessica. So it makes sense. Plus, she's done a bunch of bombs.

I did work really hard at not letting the voice be manipulated. Though, obviously, my mom managed to get herself in there, so nothing's perfect.

[User Picture]From: muh0m0r Date: May 18th, 2006 - 08:59 pm (Link)
There is a variety of ways to generate such a list so that it is not representative of one person only, the simplest one being taking the union of all lists that had been submitted to you. A more complicated way would be to select lead actresses from the top grossing movies for the last N years. Throw in there porn stars, models, and athletes based on some other criteria and have all people vote on that same list. But that's just way too much work. So I'll have to sell my ideas elsewhere. There has been interest, you know.

I don't think the scoring system is unfair, what is unfair is that not every woman got the same number of votes.

I totally think Lucy Liu should beat Xtina. But I don't think she should be that far ahead. Definitely not in the top 20. This is just my personal opinion of course.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 18th, 2006 - 09:18 pm (Link)
Hmmm... I don't understand your point. Of course not every person got the same number of votes. Its no different than running for president, for instance.

And Xtina is pretty far off the radar right now... more so than Lucy, I'd gather. Or maybe not. But that's my claim.

I mean, what I'm getting at is, its a popularity contest. By definition its not "fair"
[User Picture]From: muh0m0r Date: May 18th, 2006 - 11:05 pm (Link)
Ah, but it is different. In a presidential election, only the number of votes is counted (either state votes or individual votes -- that's a whole separate issue). If you follow that system, the hottest star would be the one that appears on the most lists. And that would be fair.

I'm certainly no expert on voting systems and only familiar with them superficially (and it's such a gray and debatable subject anyway), but here's an example. Candidate X receives 1 vote, which is worth 10 points, and candidate Y receives 2 votes, worth 10 and 9 points. If you use the total number of points (10 vs. 19) to score them, you'll have a different result than if you use the average number of points (10 vs. 9.5). However, if candidate X receives 2 votes, worth 10 and 8 points, then both the total (18 vs. 19) and the average (9 vs. 9.5) will produce the same list. In theory (read: in my opinion) you should have the same results whether you are using totals or averages. Why am I bringing averages into this? The average simply normalizes the scores (between 10 and 1 in this case) and does not alter their relative values. In your case, taking the average does alter the final result, and that's an indication that something is wrong with the scoring method. Granted, you can still normalize the scores using the total number of points awarded by all voters, but that normalization is global and arbitrary since it can be applied to any random set of numbers.

Yes, it is a popularity contest, and it is entertaining regardless of how fair or unfair it is.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 18th, 2006 - 11:41 pm (Link)
actually, my voting is much more fair than that. There are many voting systems in use in the world. The American system, which mixes single vote choice with an electoral college is actually really low on the totem pole of goodness. Instant run-off is way better, but it's a pain in the ass to count by hand, and I didn't feel like it. What I'm using is a truncated Borda Count (more or less). Much like all good things in the universe, you can find details on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

Basically, the problem with your theory is that it effectively lets a minority elect the winner. Since the maximum number of points a person could get is 10, a person who only got a single 10 vote would win. My mom for instance received only 3 votes. All of which were worth 10 points. Kiera Knightley on the other hand received 15 votes. None of which were a 10. So ignoring Angelina and Scarlett for a moment, if there could only be one winner. Who should be picked. My mom who 5% of the electorate REALLY liked (including herself, and a spammer) or Kierra who 28% of the electorate MOSTLY liked. My way places Kierra above. Which is the way I feel it should be. Honestly, I feel that way about electing a President too. The problem with all ranked voting methods is that they are more complicated and take more time than single vote methods. But really, if people don't want to take time, fuck them. Electing a president isn't supposed to be easy.
[User Picture]From: muh0m0r Date: May 19th, 2006 - 12:02 am (Link)
Ha! Did you actually count the anonymous vote?

Anyway, that was the point I was trying to make. If your mom appeared on every list, the situation you're describing would not be a problem. So I still think having everyone vote on the same list, which can be created by a separate poll, would be a better way to do this.

I sorta skimmed the article, but it looks like that method is applied to a predefined list of candidates.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 19th, 2006 - 12:28 am (Link)
yes, I counted the anonymous vote.

no, it allows for write-ins. I really don't see what you're hoping to gain by having a predefined ballot. Are you implying that you simply didn't vote for say "Elisha Cuthbert" because you were unaware that she was a choice. You realize of course that even in the broken American system, there are untold hundreds of people running for president in any given election that you never see on the ballot. It also allows for write-ins. You're unduly influenced to vote for one of two candidates over the hundreds of others because their name appears on the ballot. If no ones name appeared, then no one would have that advantage.
[User Picture]From: muh0m0r Date: May 19th, 2006 - 01:34 am (Link)
I didn't vote for Elisha Cuthbert because I have no idea who she is. I'd include Halle Berry in my top 10, but I didn't vote for her simply because, well, she wasn't on my mind at the time. But I would if her name was on the list.

Those write-ins are a kludge. In large scale voting their effect is negligible.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 19th, 2006 - 02:52 am (Link)
only as a flaw in the 2 party single vote electoral college system. In a lot of ways the American electoral system is the worst of all possible worlds.

Anyway, I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. If you don't know who Elisha is then it doesn't matter whether she's on a ballot. If you didn't remember to vote for Halle then the onus is on you for not thinking about your vote enough. No matter what, if I had chosen nominations it would have artificially limited the voting pool which would be a diservice to the point of the whole experiment in the first place.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com