Not all naked pics are sexy though, right? [I Love Sexy Pics]
Let's face it; they're not. Some are, and some are not.
Well, one of the most prolific purveyors of pics on SW is my friend @Ambroseguy80. His habit of feeding SW's daily appetite for sexy guys & girls has driven his profile to over 60,000 views (and yes, I'm one of his near daily visitors).
But what makes a naked pic sexy? Everyone has a "type" and Amby certainly knows mine. In one recent comment thread, I remarked that he should just allow me to curate his posts because the ones I hearted seemed to get a higher number of hearts from the SW community at large.
Well, one thing led to another and the idea of proving that claim came to me. Okay, so here goes ... Do my fav pics rate higher? And what else correlates to higher rated pics?
My analysis went back through 55 posts from Amby and recorded many variables (male/female, tattoos, piercings, approximate boob size, "badonk" status of any butts shown, etc). Since he does not often post guys, they were dropped from my data (too low an occurrence yields statistically invalid data). Similarly, there were not enough instances of tats or piercings or body paint to analyze their influence so they were dropped as well.
So what was left? Fifty-five posts of naked or nearly naked women showing various attributes. :) On average, you all rated them up with 23 hearts with a range from 10 hearts on the low side to 46 on the high side:
Let's get to my initial claim first: That the pics I hearted were higher rated on average than the pics I didn't heart (and yes, I only used pics from before this discussion so as not to bias the results):
The pics I had previously hearted received on average 29.2 hearts. The ones I didn't heart, received only 15.5 hearts
Okay, so Amby should clearly run his posts by me for the 👍 or 👎 before wasting everyone's time! ;)
But what else drives hearts in the world of sexy pics? How about the presence of the woman's face? Clearly you must like to gaze longingly into our eyes, right? Nope. No impact whatsoever on the number of hearts. 🙄
How about the presence of boobs in the pic? Does that drive hearts? Again, nope. Pics with boobs averaged ~23 hearts; pics without boobs averaged ~24 hearts (insignificant diff). But wait ... what about size??
Wait! What??? You guys all actually prefer smaller boobs?? Amby: Take note! (Size rating purely arbitrary by me 😁)
Butt what about butts? Lol, yes, I've been waiting to say that! 😉 Does the presence of a naked butt in the pic drive hearts? Again, just as with boobs: Nope. You peeps don't care. Pics both with and without butts rate about the same number of hearts. Butt, what about the size of the butt? Does a Badonk-esque butt rate higher or lower than other butts?
What?!?!? Really? You SWeeps like Badonks better?? 🤦♀️ And of course, the official SW arbiter of Badonk status is @TexChik's comments. 😉
I hope you've found this exercise informative and educational. And before you criticize me for this, what did you do on your fourteen day quarantine?!?! 🤨
This is not the first time I've gleaned statistics from his posts. Check this out for my first statistical analysis of Amby's work: https://similarworlds.com/2435000-I-Like-Natural-Boobs/825555-Hey-Ladies-Ready-for-some-fun-And-by-the-way-thats.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
But I'm wondering if you commented on the pics you liked, as well as hearted them, and didn't comment (at least not as much) on those you didn't particularly like.
The reason why I bring this up is I've noticed interest in my posts and comments from others are often greater when you've commented on them, as opposed to when you have not.
The most remarkable example of this is my post on American accents. It had essentially died with a modest number of replies. Sometime later, you commented on the post, and it came to life again, with an overwhelming number of replies. It became my greatest hit thanks to you.
The point I'm making is that people are attracted to and notice posts you've replied to, presumably because they're attracted to you (understandably so) and want to be a part of whatever you're a part of.
@Rutterman Wow... ummm... thank you, but to your point...
I don't know. I did gather more data on the 55 study posts than reported here, but not whether I had commented. I will say that Amby does get a lot of eye rolling comments from me on posts I DON'T heart. I don't know if that counters the effect you point out though. 🤔
Plus, there was a time here (mostly back when you and I spoke more often), when I was much more active and when my activity generated many more comments. If I ever was an SW-influencer, I think that time has passed. 🤷🏻♀️
It's of course entirely possible that my point is irrelevant when it comes to AmbroseGuy80's picture posts as his posts are obviously very different from mine. The Sara-comment factor I observed with my posts might not come into play at all with his. I just thought I'd share my thoughts about this for your consideration.
Again, I am truly impressed with what you've done here.
